Main Edition
US
FR
(Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Kamala Harris’s acceptance speech was so well-written and so well-delivered that it could have won her the Presidency all by itself — if the election were held today. But there are still more than 70 days left until voting closes, during which Harris will not be able to evade all the questions that have remained unanswered since her sudden elevation to Presidential candidate. It’s been more than a month since Biden renounced his re-election attempt, and Harris has still not held a single press conference nor given any interviews.
Such a systematic avoidance of the press requires an explanation, and the most obvious is that she is afraid of having to answer all of the questions she has dodged by receiving the nomination without going through any primaries at all. Some of those questions would have addressed her moral character, including her affair with Willie Brown, the exceptionally powerful Mayor of San Francisco; others would have addressed her unremarkable performance as Biden’s Vice President and “Border Tsar”.
Yet much bigger unanswered questions are raised by the only policy proposals that Harris issued after Biden’s renunciation — just two of them, both deeply flawed. The first proposes government price controls on food sold by retailers of all kinds, but most often by local supermarkets, which Harris blamed for “price gouging”. That is truly strange: as a lawyer, Harris should know that such activity is already illegal during emergencies and very rarely enforced. And second, as an educated person, she must know that when governments spend much more than they collect in taxes, as the Biden Administration did on a huge scale, the dollar loses value and prices must rise. If price controls are nonetheless imposed on, say, carrots, their price will not go down, instead shopkeepers will just stop selling carrots. Nobody will work to lose money by selling carrots at a loss — and the same goes for everything else.
The second Harris proposal also ignored economic realities: to help first-time home-buyers afflicted by high house prices, she proposed to give them money grants. Had she asked any economist, either Democrat or Republican, she would have learned that injecting government money into the housing market will not produce more houses but only higher house prices. Moreover, it’s striking that Harris did not propose the one thing that could reduce house prices: the abolition of the many regulations that impose high costs, including the especially costly new “green” regulations.
Crucially, these indefensible policy proposals are not just narrow measures, but rather expressions of something 10 times bigger: the application of Californian “Big Government” principles throughout the United States. Since 2017, more than a million Californians have left to emigrate elsewhere, from Montana to Texas, because of the extreme nature of the state’s new laws and taxes. Extreme environmental regulations, which increase housing costs and are driving people into homelessness, have been one result. A law that calls for slavery reparations, even though slavery was never allowed in California, is one more, while another, the new S-1955, prohibits school employees from telling parents that their child is wearing the clothes of the opposite sex — while protecting them from any punishment for “guiding” children in choosing their gender. (Elon Musk reacted to S-1955 by moving to Texas.)
That is the sort of California madness that Kamala Harris considers the new normal. And this is the sort of programme she is proposing. Over the next 73 days, non-Californians will have an opportunity to find out what Californian measures Harris intends to apply throughout the US, and then vote accordingly. If the vote were held today, immediately after her Chicago triumph, Harris would probably win. But with each passing day, as more people consider the few political ideas she is offering, victory becomes less likely.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe“Some of those questions would have addressed her moral character….” Yeah, because if her opponent is known for one thing, it is his high moral character.
If she wants to define herself as the Ying to Trump’s Yang, she will have to demonstrate her moral rectitude.
So far that’s the only true north of her young campaign, so it’s actually an important point.
Lavrentiy Beria would have a fair chance of being able to demonstrate that he had more moral rectitude than Trump.
Trumps morality isn’t the question…Harris’ is. Typical Democratic “what-about-ism” and deflection.
Kamala is Vice President.
Why doesn’t Kamala just walk down the corridor and say ‘Boss, I’ve got a great idea’?
Take her price controls. She could saunter into Biden’s office tomorrow, explain how prices can be reduced, and then prices would be reduced in time for the election. She would then be massively popular and win the election easily. Simple!
Surely somebody in the White House can explain to Kamala where her boss’s office is, so she can implement all these great policies she has.
Perhaps Biden has given his staff strict orders that if his Vice President comes to him with her batty ideas, she is not to be admitted…..
Over the last few weeks, every time Kamala has made a pronouncement about the great things she’ll do when/if elected there’s been a loud chorus from her critics of, “well, why aren’t you doing it now??”. Which is a very good question.
Because she isn’t President now.
Kamala hasn’t had a original thought since the day she walked into DC. She has an embarrassing if nonexistent legislative record as Senator. What you are hearing are Obama aides. Harris is just spouting their ideas because she has ‘been unburdened by what has been’.
I think if you look up “straw man argument” it quotes you as an example.
If you’re going to accuse her opponent of moral failings, you might want to make sure your own record is clean. Kamala is the side chick and her husband knocked up the nanny, not exactly strong footing for judging Trump.
That’s like saying that it is incumbent on Harris to show that she’s more honest that Bernie Madoff, and more moral that Jeffrey Epstein.
Harris’s economic policies are stupid but sometimes stupid policies appeal as the stupidity is not apparent to everyone.
They say it’s a ‘vibe’ campaign and that the public should not concern themselves with petty details as the Harris campaign pats the electorate on the head and whispers in their ears, “don’t you worry your pretty little head, we’ve got this”.
I suspect they’ve been inspired by Starmer’s success in getting elected in a landslide without publishing a single coherent policy proposal.
Starmer’s message was “We’re not the Tories”. Harris’ should be “I’m not Trump”.
Starmer’s message actually was the usual Labour pitch: ‘vote for us and we’ll give you money’. At least he’s keeping his word to his supporters – though the consequences for the rest of us look daily more terrifying.
Well, Nancy Pelosi said to vote Obamacare in so that they could all see what was in it.
Stupid policies may seem smart when youre voting base is stupid. 99% of women Democrat voters only care about abortion. I doubt the understand a whit of economics.
AND YET …… the silence from the legacy media is absolutely deafening.
Why are they not clamouring for interviews? Why are they not questioning her refusal to speak off autocue? Why are they not highlighting her record as VP, her history of failing-upwards and her shelving of every single one of the policy positions she espoused during her disastrous run in 2020?
What the hell happened to the media? After the insatiable, years-long feeding-frenzy over Trump, why did these same media sharks, when it came to Biden, seemingly lose their taste for blood?
Why are they now happy, having briefly been allowed to participate in the palace-coup to remove Biden, to talk of Kamala Haris ‘vibes’, ‘brat’ and ‘joy’ as though they are simply the fan-girl PR wing of the DNC?
It is brazen and utterly shameless, yet career-long journalists who work for once-respected media organisations seem happy to go along with the platitudes.
And why won’t the media address the most immediate question ….. WHO THE HELL IS CURRENTLY IN CHARGE? … because it sure as hell isn’t Joe Biden.
Who’s in charge – Obama staff members like Susan Rice and others. Obama is rubbing his hands together anticipating his 4th term and the continued downward spiral of the country.
People heard that empty suit talk about “fundamental transformation” and deluded themselves into believing that it was a good thing.
lol
What the hell happened to the media?
That is a fair question, but not because of their priors… they’ve been working for the Dems for a good 15 years now; the question is relevant because of how they will continue the Kamala parade. Nothing, not one jot of bad ink, will come through to the voters. So in that respect, this piece is naive.
Most people don’t rely on the MSM anymore. I certainly don’t. I just happen to watch BBC News in my kitchen, when they cut to R.Kennedy Jr.’s statement. After a short time, the BBC interrupted Kennedy, and we had to listen some White House journalist for the “interpretation”. Nowadays we only get bite size framed news. The worst is, living in the U.K. you are forced to pay for that cr*p.
The BBC has got someone who can interpret what RFK Jr says? I’m impressed!
And it’s not just in the US that the media are failing desperately in this regard. To listen to Justin Webb and Sarah Smith on the BBC’s Today programme this morning you would have thought that Kamala Harris is Roosevelt, Attlee and Churchill all rolled into one. It’s disgraceful that we should be forced, on pain of imprisonment, to pay for this orgy of journalistic malpractice.
In the run-up to Obama’s first election it was even more tha case.
Justin Webb’s swooning reports from the campaign trail sounded like a smitten fan delighted that a script worthy of The West Wing was unfolding on his beat.
With a couple of months to go before the vote, Webb announced to BBC listeners that the “only thing” that could stop Obama taking the White House was “Racism”.
Even then the BBC were (albeit unintentionally) drawing up a “basket of deplorables” oppositional attitude. Voters were either for the good guy or they were against him, ….. and if you were against him, you were a racist. QED
I’ll readily admit that I bought into the hope too. I thought the US electing its first black President was a watershed moment that would end a long chapter of racial inequality. But under his Presidency divisions worsened considerably and Obama has to take responsibility for a lot of that. His easy adoption of divisive identity politics was a huge retrograde step that did longlasting damage to the US that continues to worsen.
The US electing its first orange President further entrenched those divisions – ‘proving’ to the media that Trump voters were irredeemable racists, despite the fact that many had voted for Obama twice.
Obama was a huge disappointment on many levels – but I wonder if the media had done their job and held him to account whether he might have left a slightly better legacy.
Absolutely! Just the most basic questions considering our ahistorical situation:
“When you said nobody was more qualified than Joe Biden a month ago, did you believe that then? Were you not aware of his mental state? Or were you lying?”
She will not even be asked the most basic of investigative questions.
Paddy Taylor, the legacy media has an answer for you: people who ask questions like yours are far-right-wing and have been classified as domestic terrorism. Your bank accounts will now be suspended and your social media accounts deleted. Good bye, Paddy Taylor.
From my vantage point on the other side of the Atlantic, it baffles me as to why the public continues to vote for policies which it’s quite easy to work out will make things worse for everyone.
At least here in Blighty large chunks of the public have had the decency to just not bother – hence Labour’s landslide victory even though less than 20% of the electorate actually voted for them.
It’s call ‘decadence’. Everyone wants ‘free stuff’ and Joe Biden gave it to them and Kamala will as well – forgiveness of student debt, billions of ‘covid money’ much of it which eventually stolen from the program, housing vouchers, etc – now Kamala promises to grow government even more via a national level babysitting program and even more subsidized housing. There was no outline of how she was going to help grow the economy to pay for everything because she’s not going to do that. Except she has said she’ll going to after corporations and anyone who makes above six figures to pay for her ‘momala’ largesse. Note she didn’t talk much of policy ignoring perhaps the most dire problem was that of the national debt. Stay tuned for more Harris discomobulation.
I don’t trust this article, this writer. It’s the kind of article that elicits in me a gut feeling that there is important context missing from its pronouncements. In other words, that it is propaganda. The author provides not a single link to evidence supporting what he says. Why is that? My opinionated next door neighbour out on her deck shouting monologues over her phone to her meek friend has as much substance.
The author seems to want to “evade all the questions” his declarations bring up. To not want context to be “exposed.” Is he not clearly a pot nagging a kettle?
What does he mean, for example, by “[e]xtreme environmental regulations?” That sounds like his personal perspective; what other perspectives are there about these regulations? What evidence does he have, which he obviously decided not to share, that the regulations are “driving people into homelessness?” Why not outline the costs/benefits of these environmental regulations, which would include short- vs. long-term context?
What evidence does he have, and obviously decided not to share, to support the claim that “more than a million Californians have left… because of the extreme nature of the state’s new laws and taxes?”
What does he mean, specifically, by “big government?” This phrase is notorious for serving as a vague yet potent emotional trigger. It often turns out to mean that a person doesn’t want government interfering in their interests, especially those interests relating to the ability to make and keep money in any way, without limitation. As if they would be islands, rather than citizens within a society with its expectations and imposed responsibilities.
For example, the author seems to believe that California should not have to participate in reparations for slavery because “slavery was never allowed in California.” As an “educated” man and a “historian,” he should know the full context, right? Which you can read here, as a start:
https://www.aclunc.org/sites/goldchains/index.html
Moreover, California is a state in the union. Just as we are citizens in a community, not solitary occupants with only arbitrary connections to others we can deny whenever convenient.
What evidence does he have that “when governments spend much more than they collect in taxes…the dollar loses value and prices must rise?” He says an “educated” person like Harris would surely know that. Really? Is this commonly taught? And for those wishing to educate themselves, is there any context available that might counter this assumption? I’ve read well-known economists who say different. Surely this “educated” writer would know of them, and their arguments regarding this issue?
I’m no Harris fan. But this article doesn’t convince me to be even less of one.
Sorry, you of course are welcome to your opinion but it is disingenuous to the extreme to suggest that the points raised in the article are unsupported propaganda. Population decline in California (and New York btw) is well-documented. Major corporations have made very public announcements that they are leaving. It is a published fact that about 30% of America’s homeless are in California. The strictest emissions laws. The highest fuel and housing prices.
Harris was a major player in the Newsome regime that has caused major problems in California. Legacy media may or may not challenge her on it. The GOP may or may not form articulate, factual critiques of her record.
Harris needs to answer hard questions. Does she actually think what was ‘good’ for California will be ‘good’ for America? If not, then does that mean she is disavowing California’s progressive ways – that she was a part of? She’s the serving VP yet she’s being presented as a breath of fresh political air with new ideas. Is she going to support Biden’s program until November and then, presuming she’s elected, replace it with her own program in January? Can the Dems keep up Harris’s social media honeymoon for the next 70 days?
Hi Walter. I don’t see how it’s disingenuous to the extreme to point out that nowhere in the article does the author link to any evidence to support his conclusion. I mean, does he offer a single link or doesn’t he?
You too are welcome to your opinion, but your opinion follows from swallowing the author’s claims without engaging your faculty of reason and inquiring whether or not he omitted vital context.
Without context, the author’s reasoning amounts to correlation-as-cause, which risks a specious conclusion. It sounds right, but if we value solid reasoning we’ll want to know context before drawing the conclusions he does. As it stands, those conclusions look like confirmation bias.
I think it’s healthy to apply a skeptical analysis to the discussion, given the stakes. The precautionary principle, even if it rubs our ideology, our preconceived ideas, the wrong way. If we allow ourselves to rest with that discomfort for a while, it can be temporary, replaced by an expansive feeling, that of being freed from manipulation we didn’t see at first.
I speak from experience. Too often in my own life I have been guilty of giving authors the benefit of the doubt, only to discover that they’d withheld context inconvenient to their argument — that they were not seeking the truth as far as they could, but rather were seeking to bolster their beliefs and convince readers that things really are as straightforward as they imply.
Take California’s population decline: it may be well-documented, but the decline itself isn’t the point of my critique. The point is that the author’s diagnosis of the symptom implies a single cause. Is his assumption true? If most of the homeless are in California, how do we know there is a direct, definitive link between that and environmental regulations? Is there further context worth taking into account?
For example, the author chose not to disclose that the recent jump in extreme weather-caused losses has triggered an insurance crisis in California. In turn, this makes housing more vulnerable, not to mention the greater economy.
I’ll provide a link, as an example of how to present an argument in good faith, in contrast to the author’s approach: div > p:nth-of-type(16) > a”>https://susanpcrawford.substack.com/p/when-the-hole-swallows-the-donut?r=fykqe&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true)
It only seems prudent to consider this, along with other context, when forming judgments about homelessness in California.
We can now add this omitted context to the omitted context about slavery. Don’t you see that this author has presented an attractive, but simplistic — and thus likely an inaccurate — diagnosis of the problem? That he’s trying to sway your opinion — or play to your predilections — by leaving important things out?
You note that California has the strictest emissions laws. And? Somebody is going to have the strictest emissions laws; doesn’t it stand to reason that a state which faces some of the greatest impacts — including billions in financial losses, public and private — due to climate change would impose relatively strict emissions laws?
As for major corporations making “very public announcements that they are leaving.” Well! Corporations routinely make such “very public announcements” — i.e., threats — and sometimes they do move their HQ or certain operations. Corporations always condemn higher taxes and stricter regulations because their mandate is to make profit. They are legally bound to fulfill their charters, so by nature they don’t care about the environment, about communities, about you, about the future. They’re parasitic, requiring enormous nanny-state support to exist. So these “very public announcements” are only to be expected. Corporate behaviour matches the traits of a psychopath, so we’d be foolish to conclude that certain policies and regulations are bad because corporations react negatively to them.
I very much share your concerns and questions about Harris in the latter part of your reply, but I’ll set that aside because it’s beside the point of my critique of the article.
Smug jerks who ask for links to every fact presented in an article strike me as the laziest of c**ts.
Yet the laziest of all are those who don’t bother to understand plain sentences before wanking about them. You see, I didn’t ask for links to every fact, but pointed out that “nowhere in the article does the author link to any evidence.”
I think I’ve earned the right to be smug now, LOL.
My history with people like you, and I’m sure I’m not alone, is that any citation, I include isnt sufficiently left-winger enough for them. So go ahead and be a smug ostrich.
Especially those who after demanding the proof, make their own assertions in the same post without providing any evidence of proof of them.
What evidence does he have, and obviously decided not to share, to support the claim that “more than a million Californians have left… because of the extreme nature of the state’s new laws and taxes?”
Is that a serious question? Because a cursory Google search of div > p:nth-of-type(2) > a”>”people leaving California” turns up an endless stream of stories on the subject.
When you’re quibbling over that part of the article, the rest of your questions are easy to ignore.
Hi Alex. A “cursory” glance at “an endless stream of stories” doesn’t tell us anything about their quality, about the assumptions and reasoning they’re based on, and therefore about their usefulness. It’s merely a tally.
It’s well-documented that internet search has severely declined. Many articles are merely copies, all saying essentially the same thing, often verbatim. A cursory search that produces tons of results doesn’t mean we now have compelling reasons to settle on a particular conclusion.
We might, for example, want to take more time in our search to find high-quality results. We might want to be open to the possibility that our conception of high-quality might need refinement. We might even want to read books in addition to pushing a button to get an instant “endless stream of stories.”
I don’t think it’s “quibbling” to set the bar higher than what this author was willing to offer. We agree there’s a lot at stake, so why not be rigorous in seeking insight? Why settle for easy, context-free three-minute reads?
You’re saying that it’s easy for you to ignore the vital context I provided, which includes the context that although California didn’t allow slavery technically, it did allow slavery practically, which is of course all that matters when it comes to actual human lives. Even though the author chose to omit this context, it seems to me that anyone interested in pursuing truth, in good faith, would not want to ignore it, however easy (convenient) it might be to do so.
What evidence does he have that “when governments spend much more than they collect in taxes…the dollar loses value and prices must rise?”
Yeah, that Adam Smith and his ‘supply and demand’ bollix, eh? What a numpty! Didn’t he understand that the more money you print, the richer you get?
Hello, Hugh. I’ve read Adam Smith. I have an old worn copy of The Wealth of Nations. He lived at a time when currency was pegged to things like gold. That hasn’t been the case in the U.S. since Nixon. You can look up “sovereign currency” to update your understanding. This has important implications with respect to spending more than tax revenue and the value of currencies.
“What evidence does he have that “when governments spend much more than they collect in taxes…the dollar loses value and prices must rise?” He says an “educated” person like Harris would surely know that. Really? Is this commonly taught? And for those wishing to educate themselves, is there any context available that might counter this assumption? I’ve read well-known economists who say different.”
Speaking as a former Econ major, my answer to your question about whether runaway spending yielding inflation is yes, it is commonly taught. As for your well-known economists who say different, please provide names and links.
Please check your quote again. I didn’t say “runaway” spending. I said “when governments spend much more than they collect in taxes.” I prefer heterodox economists to those commonly teaching economics majors. People like Randy Wray, Bill Mitchell, Scott Fulwiller, Stephanie Kelton, James Galbraith. Their message is that taxes are for subtraction, for lowering inflation, not to raise money to pay for things. Of course there will be a limit to spending, but that limit isn’t tax revenues.
“It often turns out to mean that a person doesn’t want government interfering in their interests, especially those interests relating to the ability to make and keep money in any way, without limitation.”
So where is YOUR proof or evidence of this. You are doing the exact same thing that you are criticizing the author for doing. Typical Democrat, Accusing the competition of doing what you yourself are doing…Rules for thee and not for me.
“Her moral character”!!!
‘And that was as far as I got. Who takes this garbage seriously?
And the MSM and Democrats talking about Doug Emhoff, Kamala’s husband and Tim Walz being the new ‘low testosterone’ model for ‘today’s manhood’. Really though? Dougie who impregnated his nanny and Timmy who lied about his military service. A ‘Stolen Valor’ poster child? Clearly they are pushing this to appeal to women. It’s just insane.
It is easy to be critical about this sort of thing, but which of us can honestly say we haven’t impregnated a nanny or two?
that made me smile
She won’t. The press will swallow the insult and continue to cheerlead for her.
as an educated person, she must know that when governments spend much more than they collect in taxes, as the Biden Administration did on a huge scale, the dollar loses value and prices must rise.
Kamala is credentialed, which is not to be confused with educated or learned. Because, yes, an educated person would understand how inflation works. An educated person would understand that price controls do not work. An educated person would learn why people are leaving states like California in droves and address those reasons. But she’s not educated; she is a politician, and not a very clever one at that.
The more I know about a politician, the less I like him — or her. In the case of Harris, I already dislike her. I eagerly await events.
Good article.
The right wing propaganda is on full display here, too funny. Old over the hill Trump wanted a rematch with even older Biden, now that it’s no longer the case he is total disarray. He has become such a bore to listen to, he was actually funny and somewhat entertaining 8 years ago. But now it’s just endless insults, same old rage crap, no policies to speak of. He is a miserable old man who needs to be retired in the dustbin of history. Trump cares about Trump, no one else, and he will do nothing for the people or the country except create chaos. Obviously he will also deny the election results if he loses (but course not if he wins) and attempt another uprising. He is no democrat, he is a freak, a wannabe dictator who would love to emulate Putin with unrestricted power. The Republicans used to be a respectable party, but no longer, they are led by fools.
Oh right. You sound like mainstream media. The article, incidentally, was about pocwoman. But go on, get Trump off your chest.
Care to explain why Trump, if he was set on becoming a dictator did not do so when he was President last time? Yeah…Just as I had figured, Partisan hack.
As a Brit in England it seems that the media will support anyone who is not Trump. Nikki Haley or most of the other Republican candidates would have been better than Trump. It is a mystery to most Brits why Trump has any support at all. He seems to be imploding and making it easier for Harris to march onwards without saying anything at all.
Only according to the media. If you were here in the US and spoke to Americans, your mystery would be solved.
Can you enlighten us, and finish this sentence: “As an American, I support a madman for President because….”
as a fellow Brit I don’t think most of us are at all mystified by support for Trump. He’s not welded to the insane woke ideology and has the welfare of working class Americans at heart. If I were his advisors I’d tell him to say very little right now. All this razzmatazz gets wearing after a while. The election is not tomorrow. As some military strategist once said “never interrupt your enemies when they are making a mistake.”
“….the welfare of working class Americans at heart”? Ha ha ha ha! He has one thing and one thing only at heart – the welfare of Donald J. Trump.
Brilliant response.
You can’t expect to be taken seriously when all you ever do is shill the Democratic talking points. Don’t you people understand that we are immune to their effects at this point? You are not stirring anyone up, nor are you making any sort of actual point. Perhaps looking foolish is your plan? Well, at least that seems to be working.
The British media has taught the population over decades that the GOP is made up of the Christian Right and they are Evil to liberal Britons, atheist or otherwise.
Sadly, even for those more educated there is the neocon association with Trump Jnr, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Blair not so long ago.
I’ve reached the conclusion that the news media in Britain has a more uncritical sway over the population than in the US with its hyperpartisan platforms. The reason might be the comparatively low level of education in the UK.
The reason might be the comparatively low level of education in the UK.
It’s more that education in the UK is entirely controlled by the state bureaucracy and is devoted in the main to promoting the expansion of that bureaucracy by teaching kids and undergraduates that anything that’s outside the state is somehow reprehensible or immoral.
As a Brit in the USA (having lived here 35 years) I know that the UK doesn’t get conservative America because you’ve never lived in a vast country 3000 miles wide with two oceans, trackless deserts, huge mountain ranges, 100″ of snow some winters, and bears in the woods behind your house (I have photos). Micro-managing the US economy sounds like a good idea to Europeans, but it makes Americans (outside of socialist-run cities) scratch their heads and wonder what the heck business it is of yours how I raise my family, how big my truck is, or how many firearms I think I need. Trump gets us.
Also, the UK is no longer a Christian nation, but the US still is.
The Democrats may find it useful to take a look at the pre-election rally in support of Neil Kinnock held in Sheffield in 1992. There was a lot of screeching and razzmatazz there too.
Yeah. Kinnock said “We’re all right” a heap of times. I remember watching it, and saying “He’s just lost the election” out loud. I still can’t work out what he thought he was doing.
Kinnock thought he had it in the bag and also that he was the political equivalent of a rock star whereas he was really a jumped up idiot albeit he ended up as a very well paid Commissioner who sacked the auditor when she got too close to the reality of the finances.Nothing more than an incompetent, nasty s hit.
She’ll say whatever the script tells her. If she gets voted in (Democrats always show up to vote even if they don’t like their rep), it’ll be similar to what’s in place now. President in hiding, with the press providing cover. Any day to day/foreign issues are overseen by Obama and the rest of the old nonelected elites behind the scenes, stringing the public and press lemmings along off the cliff with their old policies that never, ever work.
For people who complain about the media all the time, it’s hilarious that they now think it is indispensable for a candidate to talk to them. This argument smacks of desperation, “ooh she’ll make a mistake and then we’ll be on top again.” Don’t hold your breath, when she does an interview, she will be prepared, and she will do fine.
The reason to stay away from the press isn’t because she is afraid of the press it is all the yahoos on the internet who will seize on anything she says, take it out of context, and misinterpret it. Social media will create a gaffe even if there isn’t one.
She is winning. Trump is a clown. She is not going to let right-wing pundits tell her how to run her campaign.
I don’t think so. She will not be asked hard questions until after the election, if then, and that will only happen when the legacy media is looking for a scalp and declared her dead in the water. Then they will ALL turn on her at once a la Joe Biden.
She will not be asked what she knew of Biden’s condition.
She will not be asked about the border, Biden’s cozying up to Iran upon his election, the numerous wars we’re committed to now.
She will also not be asked about her work as a prosecutor…turned BLM activist…turned prosecutor again now that it’s convenient. It’ll all be identity-based nonsense adoration of an empty suit.
She is avoiding press conferences and interviews not just because of her flaky California views and her, perhaps, less than stellar character but mainly because she lacks the ability required of a high public official.
The Democrats are about to tiptoe into the White House with a intellectual featherweight providing the facade concealing a third Obama term.
Yes, she’s a puppet.
4th
” to help first-time home-buyers afflicted by high house prices, she proposed to give them money grants. Had she asked any economist, either Democrat or Republican, she would have learned that injecting government money into the housing market will not produce more houses but only higher house prices. ”
We’ve had various schemes in the UK for years to ‘help’ first time buyers. It’s surprising (or perhaps it’snot surprising at all) how little it gets pointed out that it will inflate house prices.
I greatly appreciate Luttwak’s down-to-earth perspective on Harris. RFK, Jr. also noted her avoidance of media interviews in today announcing suspension of his campaign and endorsing Trump. Personally, I’m glad I live in a state where I can vote Kennedy — my conscience — without influencing the election, as Colorado is already a lock for the Dems. Voting for Trump would be difficult; I can only hope, if elected, Trump will honor what apparently is a promise to give Kennedy a cabinet position with the authority to accomplish at least some of the tasks RFK, Jr. might have, as president, including undermining corporate influence and restoring the American people to a better state of health. Listening to him speak, I remain deeply sad that this man never had a real chance of becoming president, and so disillusioned by the party to which I was loyal for life — until recently — and mainstream media that acted, and keeps acting, as its mouthpiece.
He would have had a bigger chance of becoming President were it not for the fact that he is off-the-wall crazy.
Very smart strategy by Kamala. No policy talks and no interviews. The media will help her all they can. Her base cares only that she is a woman and not white.
No reason to do it differently and risk to make mistakes. The number of undecided voters is minuscule. The key is to energize the base. To get them out to vote. Nothing else. The base is minorities, beta men, and women.
Ms Harris’ speech would have “won her the Presidency all by itself — if the election were held today”.
— and if we were all such fools as those in the Convention audience.
Nowhere in the article does the author link to evidence to support his assertions that people have left California because of so-called “Big Government” (his quotation, source not cited) “principles,” principles he claims are “extreme… new laws and taxes.”
It’s unusual for a writer to choose not to include links in an article to support their case. It’s not the most responsible approach because it leaves deployment of vague, scary words like “Big Government” to make the case via emotional means, stirring up people who are predisposed to reflexively react to such words. It diverts reason.
Without linking to anything, the author implies that a law calling for slavery reparations is one of those “extreme” new laws because, this “historian” claims, “slavery was never allowed in California.”
Except it was. Here is a link the author didn’t provide, obviously because it was inconvenient:
div > p:nth-of-type(9) > a”> div > p:nth-of-type(9) > a”> div > p:nth-of-type(9) > a”> div > p:nth-of-type(9) > a”>https://www.aclunc.org/sites/goldchains/index.html
When you read the linked study, you realize that the author is arguing that California didn’t “allow” slavery officially. That is, he’s actually arguing a technicality about slavery! All that matters is what California allowed, period, not what it technically did.
This is the deliberate omission of vital context. Again, regarding slavery. If he’s willing to do that, then clearly he wouldn’t hesitate to omit inconvenient context related to other arenas.
He claims that “more than a million Californians have left… because of the extreme nature of the state’s new laws and taxes.” Okay, but is there more context? I’m asking this because of the way he left out vital context about slavery. He is saying that this symptom is caused directly by this one cause. To back it up, he gives us one and only one sample, that of Elon Musk, who is hardly a reliable witness.
What is the evidence that environmental regulations have driven people into homelessness? Is there any more context to consider? Is it a problem with execution, rather than the policy idea? (I.e. not part of a just transition.) How many people will be rendered homeless or suffer in other ways if we don’t take “extreme” measures to try and curb the extreme threat of global warming — with California already one of the hardest hit states, its future only projected to get worse in this regard.
Life is often more complex than people want it to be. It doesn’t always fit neatly into ideological patterns.
I think some healthy skepticism about the author’s claims is in order here.
A rewatch of the Peter Sellers classic, “Being There” offers a lot of insights on how an empty suit (or pantsuit) can progress…
interesting commentary from you but it is the truth