This is a fair enough assessment of Kamala Harris, but while you focused on her record and lack of popularity in polling, you left out what I'd expect will be the biggest factor. Donald Trump has proved beyond question that he will strike all the lowest blows, weaponize the cheapest potshots, and resort to the most unfair characterizations of any opponent.
So of course we have to expect that the well-known fact Harris made her first step on to the political career ladder with the assistance of California's infamous WIllie Brown as his girlfriend of the month is going to be ripe material for Trump. I'm no fan of sleeping your way to the top, but it happens, and it very unfortunately falls well into Trump's sweet spot. Does anyone think he'll let her off the hook?
And that's just one of the truthful hits he'll be able to exploit. God knows what else he'll come up with.
While I like the idea of The Prosecutor vs The Criminal, I just don't see her being able to persuade anybody who isn't a card-carrying progressive. She certainly couldn't in her last run for the presidency.
I will say this, though. Harris's speech today about Biden was the best I've seen her ever -- more professional, more coherent and much closer to a national candidate. Maybe she has grown politically. We'll only be able to tell after seeing her in public a lot more.
I admit I've never been a fan of Harris, and think the Democrats are making the same mistake with her that they made with Biden, wishing they had a better candidate than they do. But it's not my party, and I'm not any worse off with her running against Trump than I was when Biden was Trump's target/victim/chew toy. She's younger than Biden and might have more fight in her than I think. But Trump is a wrecking ball, and this will be her -- and the country's -- summer blockbuster, god help us.
I was impressed with the clip I saw of that speech. And if Trump brings up Willie Brown she can say "Mr. Grab Em By the Pussy talking about anyone else's sex life? Now that's what my husband would call chutzpah."
Your husband sounds right to me. But my understanding of chutzpah (I double-checked in a dictionary) is that it in addition to audacity and impudence, it also involves effrontery, supreme self-confidence and an exaggerated self-opinion -- all more characteristic of Trump than Harris. And worse -- way worse -- is that he has some force field that allows him to get away with crudity in ways that no one else really can. He'd get applause for "sleeping her way to the top" or whatever crass way Trump would put it, and her absolutely correct response would get . . . crickets.
Harris is more articulate than Trump and presents herself well. However, she is far less charismatic, comes across as weak compared to his strength and her progressive credentials detract from her appeal to the moderate center of gravity. The inertia of her position as the anointed one may not be sufficient to carry the day.
I’m actually a little more hopeful that she might be maturing. I thought her remarks today were presented well and forcefully. She’ll have to prove that over and over again, so we’ll see.
Biden departed saying he is a Zionist. If Harris does not follow Biden's lead and instead cants to the left she will be painted easily as the DEI Diva, start to finish. Stand strong on Israel, on the other hand, and she demonstrates the ability to stand strong against the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. The majority of Americans are for all intents and purposes post Woke.
The winning strategy in the newly shuffled deck of American politics may be for Democrats to take the opportunity to move beyond identity politics, and the tradition of building coalitions by appealing to separate vocal interests groups by promising to address their specific aspirations. An appeal to principles of good government would go far toward dispelling voter cynicism, while pricking the balloon of GOP anti DEI sentiment and the growing movement of the broad electorate against progressive overreach. There is a predominant feeling that politicians are in it for themselves and will say only what their patrons want to hear. Bribery is done for the most part legally with no visible strings when interests are able to concentrate very large amounts of money for their causes.
In the past their existed statesmen for whom honor and public interest were the medium of their personal ambition. A healthy community is a society of persons each exercising their individual causality in pursuit of their own needs and ambitions in ways consistent with the wellbeing of the community, all striving to ‘do the right thing’. Government is established to provide for the common good, and those who would serve in government are obliged to that mission. Political theory precedent to the Constitution, distinguished between ambition, or the love of power, useful as it may be to the aims of the community—think Adam Smith and capitalism, that society benefits from the pursuit of individual interests—and “love of fame, the ruling passion of the noblest minds” (Hamilton, Federalist #72), by which, in contradistinction to celebrity, ambitious persons pursue the transgenerational regard of their communities, thereby the distinction between the petty politician and the statesman.
If we are to transcend universal and personal decline we need act unilaterally and collectively to restore the health of the body politic. Individual causality is the first mover but can do but little of constructive purpose without support of likeminded persons. Nor can causes or the interests of groups be advanced except the consensus of the larger community be developed.
A government in the model of a democratic republic will find it difficult to function effectively if its institutions are not perceived to represent and to act in the interest of the collective will of the people, to express some overarching consensus of the balance of competing interests, rather than being in the thrall of certain of those interests. Absent the perception of legitimacy people will be inclined to disregard the laws or to support government policies only when they are seen to promote their parochial interests. Absent governmental efficiency and public safety, person’s, aware of their own inadequacies and having lost faith in reality, will succumb to fantasy, be receptive to conspiracy theories, will look for strong leadership offering simplistic solutions, and be especially vulnerable to demagogic figures promising collective empowerment and redress of perceived indignities.
It is telling that in consideration of possible candidates to replace Biden on the ticket, pros and cons seem largely those of appeal to interest: a black woman versus a white male, etc., or that of cosmetic celebrity. It seems not to have occurred to many pundits that voters, though long trained to consider first what’s in it for them, might be open to the promise of sacrifice for the common weal, realizing that their own interest is wrapped up with the viability the larger community.
The reluctance of many to see Biden step down was that it was too late to change horses, even that maintenance of the status quo was more important than defeating the orange menace. But if this is not the moment to plainly address the concerns of the nation, then when? And is a return to first principles often not the proper reset?
Biden out continued'
The walls have fallen. Now the administration retreats to the inner citadel. Harris represents a continuation of that instinct to maintain the status quo under all threats even at the expense of losing the election. Harris is no more popular than Biden, comes from further to the left, is seen by many as inconstant and to lack the gravitas suitable to the office. The hesitant must come from the shadows now. It is time for potential candidates to examine their hole cards in light of the new reality. If the inevitability of Harris is to be checked, those who harbor presidential ambitions, but till now have kept their own council, kept their powder dry, to play those cards, to cross the Rubicon. Time is essential. Harris, with the endorsement of Biden as his successor is moments away from having the nomination sewn up. Silence from those waiting for the ideal opening, an irresistible wave of popular acclaim, may find that window closed. The fallback position of the deadenders will be to close speculation on potential choices by a preemptive virtual rollcall of delegates. Ambitious challengers would do well to come forth now before that happens.
The argument that prospects without national name recognition are at a distinct disadvantage ignores the phenomenon of celebrity creation in the current foreshortened news cycle and ubiquity of social media, a thing that can be created in 15 minutes or so. Name recognition would fall immediately to anyone stepping into the glare of the hyper-sensitized moment. And the electorate may resent a top down mandate to replace the man they elected.
Harris is the republican’s wet dream of the candidate to replace Biden. All of the old tropes, the tried and true anti-Biden memes, except the senility argument, now come to bear on Harris together with her own liabilities, an added layer to the cake. Just as they feared Biden’s withdrawal, that fear has been transferred. They fear running against anyone other than Harris.
The electorate, sick unto death of established politics, will respond only to truly new possibilities rather than to remixes of the same old shit.
Here is an easy way of understanding Harris. How many points would she be losing by, if she was running against someone else? The answer is a lot. She has a record that says she is a dismal candidate for president In 2020, she got exactly zero delegates. She lost to Joe Biden. That’s pretty low. Would she even be running for president had it not been for the debate? She thinks that lying about abortion will make her president. She may even be right.
This is a fair enough assessment of Kamala Harris, but while you focused on her record and lack of popularity in polling, you left out what I'd expect will be the biggest factor. Donald Trump has proved beyond question that he will strike all the lowest blows, weaponize the cheapest potshots, and resort to the most unfair characterizations of any opponent.
So of course we have to expect that the well-known fact Harris made her first step on to the political career ladder with the assistance of California's infamous WIllie Brown as his girlfriend of the month is going to be ripe material for Trump. I'm no fan of sleeping your way to the top, but it happens, and it very unfortunately falls well into Trump's sweet spot. Does anyone think he'll let her off the hook?
And that's just one of the truthful hits he'll be able to exploit. God knows what else he'll come up with.
While I like the idea of The Prosecutor vs The Criminal, I just don't see her being able to persuade anybody who isn't a card-carrying progressive. She certainly couldn't in her last run for the presidency.
I will say this, though. Harris's speech today about Biden was the best I've seen her ever -- more professional, more coherent and much closer to a national candidate. Maybe she has grown politically. We'll only be able to tell after seeing her in public a lot more.
I admit I've never been a fan of Harris, and think the Democrats are making the same mistake with her that they made with Biden, wishing they had a better candidate than they do. But it's not my party, and I'm not any worse off with her running against Trump than I was when Biden was Trump's target/victim/chew toy. She's younger than Biden and might have more fight in her than I think. But Trump is a wrecking ball, and this will be her -- and the country's -- summer blockbuster, god help us.
I was impressed with the clip I saw of that speech. And if Trump brings up Willie Brown she can say "Mr. Grab Em By the Pussy talking about anyone else's sex life? Now that's what my husband would call chutzpah."
Your husband sounds right to me. But my understanding of chutzpah (I double-checked in a dictionary) is that it in addition to audacity and impudence, it also involves effrontery, supreme self-confidence and an exaggerated self-opinion -- all more characteristic of Trump than Harris. And worse -- way worse -- is that he has some force field that allows him to get away with crudity in ways that no one else really can. He'd get applause for "sleeping her way to the top" or whatever crass way Trump would put it, and her absolutely correct response would get . . . crickets.
I don't want to see this movie. I really don't.
Her husband. Not mine. Wanted to clarify.
Oops. Just saw where the end quote came. Let me know if I need to explain to your wife or something.
Harris is more articulate than Trump and presents herself well. However, she is far less charismatic, comes across as weak compared to his strength and her progressive credentials detract from her appeal to the moderate center of gravity. The inertia of her position as the anointed one may not be sufficient to carry the day.
I’m actually a little more hopeful that she might be maturing. I thought her remarks today were presented well and forcefully. She’ll have to prove that over and over again, so we’ll see.
She is, as they say, presentable and well spoken. She would trash Trump if the scheduled debate were actually to take place.
She’s 60. Maturity will probably not save her.
Biden departed saying he is a Zionist. If Harris does not follow Biden's lead and instead cants to the left she will be painted easily as the DEI Diva, start to finish. Stand strong on Israel, on the other hand, and she demonstrates the ability to stand strong against the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. The majority of Americans are for all intents and purposes post Woke.
Biden out continued.
The winning strategy in the newly shuffled deck of American politics may be for Democrats to take the opportunity to move beyond identity politics, and the tradition of building coalitions by appealing to separate vocal interests groups by promising to address their specific aspirations. An appeal to principles of good government would go far toward dispelling voter cynicism, while pricking the balloon of GOP anti DEI sentiment and the growing movement of the broad electorate against progressive overreach. There is a predominant feeling that politicians are in it for themselves and will say only what their patrons want to hear. Bribery is done for the most part legally with no visible strings when interests are able to concentrate very large amounts of money for their causes.
In the past their existed statesmen for whom honor and public interest were the medium of their personal ambition. A healthy community is a society of persons each exercising their individual causality in pursuit of their own needs and ambitions in ways consistent with the wellbeing of the community, all striving to ‘do the right thing’. Government is established to provide for the common good, and those who would serve in government are obliged to that mission. Political theory precedent to the Constitution, distinguished between ambition, or the love of power, useful as it may be to the aims of the community—think Adam Smith and capitalism, that society benefits from the pursuit of individual interests—and “love of fame, the ruling passion of the noblest minds” (Hamilton, Federalist #72), by which, in contradistinction to celebrity, ambitious persons pursue the transgenerational regard of their communities, thereby the distinction between the petty politician and the statesman.
If we are to transcend universal and personal decline we need act unilaterally and collectively to restore the health of the body politic. Individual causality is the first mover but can do but little of constructive purpose without support of likeminded persons. Nor can causes or the interests of groups be advanced except the consensus of the larger community be developed.
A government in the model of a democratic republic will find it difficult to function effectively if its institutions are not perceived to represent and to act in the interest of the collective will of the people, to express some overarching consensus of the balance of competing interests, rather than being in the thrall of certain of those interests. Absent the perception of legitimacy people will be inclined to disregard the laws or to support government policies only when they are seen to promote their parochial interests. Absent governmental efficiency and public safety, person’s, aware of their own inadequacies and having lost faith in reality, will succumb to fantasy, be receptive to conspiracy theories, will look for strong leadership offering simplistic solutions, and be especially vulnerable to demagogic figures promising collective empowerment and redress of perceived indignities.
It is telling that in consideration of possible candidates to replace Biden on the ticket, pros and cons seem largely those of appeal to interest: a black woman versus a white male, etc., or that of cosmetic celebrity. It seems not to have occurred to many pundits that voters, though long trained to consider first what’s in it for them, might be open to the promise of sacrifice for the common weal, realizing that their own interest is wrapped up with the viability the larger community.
The reluctance of many to see Biden step down was that it was too late to change horses, even that maintenance of the status quo was more important than defeating the orange menace. But if this is not the moment to plainly address the concerns of the nation, then when? And is a return to first principles often not the proper reset?
Biden out continued'
The walls have fallen. Now the administration retreats to the inner citadel. Harris represents a continuation of that instinct to maintain the status quo under all threats even at the expense of losing the election. Harris is no more popular than Biden, comes from further to the left, is seen by many as inconstant and to lack the gravitas suitable to the office. The hesitant must come from the shadows now. It is time for potential candidates to examine their hole cards in light of the new reality. If the inevitability of Harris is to be checked, those who harbor presidential ambitions, but till now have kept their own council, kept their powder dry, to play those cards, to cross the Rubicon. Time is essential. Harris, with the endorsement of Biden as his successor is moments away from having the nomination sewn up. Silence from those waiting for the ideal opening, an irresistible wave of popular acclaim, may find that window closed. The fallback position of the deadenders will be to close speculation on potential choices by a preemptive virtual rollcall of delegates. Ambitious challengers would do well to come forth now before that happens.
The argument that prospects without national name recognition are at a distinct disadvantage ignores the phenomenon of celebrity creation in the current foreshortened news cycle and ubiquity of social media, a thing that can be created in 15 minutes or so. Name recognition would fall immediately to anyone stepping into the glare of the hyper-sensitized moment. And the electorate may resent a top down mandate to replace the man they elected.
Harris is the republican’s wet dream of the candidate to replace Biden. All of the old tropes, the tried and true anti-Biden memes, except the senility argument, now come to bear on Harris together with her own liabilities, an added layer to the cake. Just as they feared Biden’s withdrawal, that fear has been transferred. They fear running against anyone other than Harris.
The electorate, sick unto death of established politics, will respond only to truly new possibilities rather than to remixes of the same old shit.
Harris was an effective politician in California. She was an ineffective politician in 2020. We'll know soon enough how effective she is now.
Here is an easy way of understanding Harris. How many points would she be losing by, if she was running against someone else? The answer is a lot. She has a record that says she is a dismal candidate for president In 2020, she got exactly zero delegates. She lost to Joe Biden. That’s pretty low. Would she even be running for president had it not been for the debate? She thinks that lying about abortion will make her president. She may even be right.
Over on Etsy, you can buy "Heels up Harris" merchandise. She has been known as "Heels up Harris for a long time.
Kennedy for the win.
They have now concluded that the worm died of malnutrition.
Parrot MSM much?
Thanks for the comment. Not a follower of MSN. Thought that my own invention but understand that more than one person might have come up with that.