One of the dumbest things Kamala Harris' presidential campaign repeats often is that she is ready to "turn the page." It's a terrible slogan and an ironic one at that.
It has people scratching their heads: The next four years? What about the last four?
Still, if you want to know what the next four years with Harris as president might look like, it's a guessing game. She's firm on some awful policies that give us a glimpse into a socialist framework of government that runs on joy and taxpayer dollars.
But the vice president also has no problem lying about Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump's platform, flip-flopping on her own policies and obfuscating on other important things. It makes her actual platform hard to pin down.
I understand that Trump lies a lot, too, but we already know that. What do we know about Harris?
Harris is dishonest. A lot.
As a prosecutor turned politician, Harris can communicate effectively. When she doesn't, there are only a couple of possible reasons: She's either deliberately being unclear or lying.
Harris' lies have become more prominent in the past month. During an interview with the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ) on Tuesday, Harris said, "Four years ago, when we came in, we came in during the worst unemployment since the Great Depression." She made a similar statement during her debate with Trump.
Her claim is grossly overstated.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, which started in early 2020, the unemployment rate spiked to 14.8%. But by December 2020, the unemployment rate had fallen back to 6.7%. That is high compared with other recent years, but nowhere near the worst since the 1930s.
For example, the unemployment rate in October 2009 − nine months into Barack Obama's presidency − was at 10.2%.
The point of Harris' false claim is that the Biden-Harris administration has improved the economy. But inflation spiked to the highest level in 40 years in the summer of 2022, and the cost of essential items like food and housing remain painfully high for millions of Americans.
In a Primerica survey released last year, 72% of middle-class families said their incomes had fallen behind the rising cost of living, and 74% said they were unable to save for the future.
Harris has also repeatedly flip-flopped on fracking to extract oil and gas. Who can keep up? Her reversals on something as important as energy production concern me a lot. It's vital to the American economy to use the abundant resources we have, especially where I live in Texas.
When Harris changes her mind based on what's politically expedient, what will she do while in office? Doing whatever is expedient doesn't work for me, and it shouldn't work for you.
Harris has done the same thing on abortion. ProPublica published a misleading story about a woman who died after taking medication to induce an abortion. In an X post that appears to be in response to that story, she blamed Georgia's law that banned abortions after a viable heartbeat.
"There is so much at stake in this election, including restoring the freedoms that have been taken away from us," Harris wrote. "If Donald Trump gets the chance, he will sign a national abortion ban, and these horrific realities will multiply."
Trump has said several times that he has no interest in signing a federal ban on abortion, and that due to the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, there is no need for such a ban.
Harris makes this false claim about Trump for obvious reasons: "Reproductive rights" is a hallmark of the Democratic Party, and claiming that Trump will take away those rights is meant to scare the progressive base. Yet, the current system in which each state can establish its own laws on abortion is the most democratic thing we've seen in decades on the issue.
This month, the Harris campaign launched an ad that tries to tie Trump to the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025. Trump has repeatedly said that he has had no involvement with the organization's plan, even going so far as to disavow it.
Yet, Harris continues to make this false claim because Project 2025 has been demonized in the news media, and any connection she can make between Trump and the organization makes her opponent look extreme. It's all about guilt by association.
In a lot of words, Harris says little
Harris also frequently spouts "word salads," defined by Webster's as a "string of empty, incoherent, unintelligible, or nonsensical words or comments."
Here's an example, from a speech Harris delivered Wednesday:
"I grew up understanding the children of the community are the children of the community, and we should all have a vested interest in ensuring that children can go grow up with the resources that they need to achieve their God-given potential."
That's a lot of words to say little.
In the same speech, Harris couldn't seem to sell her own economic plan. She said she would take on big corporations that engage in price gouging, but then admitted that few companies actually resort to price gouging.
Some of Harris' spin is so bad, it's almost good. At the NABJ event, Harris was asked about Secret Service protection after the second attempted assassination of Trump.
"Do you have full confidence in the Secret Service?" a journalist asked.
Harris responded: "I do ... but I mean, you can go back to Ohio. Not everybody has Secret Service. And there are far too many people in our country right now who are not feeling safe."
She went on, "I mean, I look at Project 2025 and I look at, you know, like the 'don't say gay' laws coming out of Florida. Members of the LGBTQ community don't feel safe right now. Immigrants or people with an immigrant background don't feel safe right now. Women don't feel safe right now. And so, yes, I feel safe ... but that doesn't change my perspective on the importance of fighting for the safety of everybody in our country."
Spinning the question to deflect to other people's problems is cunning. The problem is that feeling unsafe is a far cry from being the target of two assassination attempts. That didn't seem to matter to the vice president.
A more straightforward candidate would have taken the opportunity to stress the need for greater security and accountability within the Secret Service to prevent political violence from escalating. But Harris wasn't interested in a talking point that would serve the greater good or defend Trump. She was interested in spouting an idea that would make her look sympathetic to other groups. But if anything, the comment made her seem insensitive.
You want to do this for the next four years?
When I hear Harris speak, I groan. Half of the time, I don't understand what she's trying to say. The other half, I don't agree with her positions on policy or her political posturing.
Harris' level of sophistry is sadly common in politicians, but it shouldn't be. I'm glad to see fact-checks after debates or big speeches, but they don't seem to stop the Harris campaign from being dishonest, deliberately confusing or flip-flopping on important policies.
2 comments:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GX7VLN8XQAABcSS?format=jpg&name=large
Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu and French President Emmanuel Macron held a difficult conversation last week over the escalating situation in Lebanon, Israel’s Channel 12 reports.
According to the report, Macron, who initiated the call, hurled harsh accusations at the Israeli premier for leading Israel and Lebanon to the brink of a full-scale war.
“The responsibility to prevent escalation is yours. You can opt for a diplomatic solution. This is the moment to show leadership and responsibility. Your activity in the north is pushing the region to war,” Macron was quoted in the report as saying.
Netanyahu replied: “Instead of putting the pressure on us, it’s about time you pressured Hezbollah. We will bring our residents back home [in the north]. This is the decision we made this week and we will act on it.”
On Thursday, France voted in favor of a United Nations General Assembly resolution proposed by the Palestinian Authority to impose sanctions and an arms embargo on Israel.
Israeli officials expressed their disappointment over Paris’s stance, including its inability to put diplomatic pressure on Hezbollah to end its hostilities, Channel 12 reported.
“You, the French, do what you still think you must diplomatically do and we will do what we must do,” senior officials in Jerusalem said in the report.
A French source noted that “a diplomatic agreement in the north is still possible, on condition that all sides take responsibility. The latest security developments are worrying because they fuel a new dynamic of escalation.”
Macron expressed his sympathies with the Lebanese people in footage uploaded to X, saying that “escalation is in no one’s interest.”
In the wake of the two-day attack across Lebanon in which pagers and walkie-talkie communication devices held by Hezbollah operatives exploded, killing dozens and injuring thousands more, Macron noted that Lebanon should not “live in fear of an imminent war.”
He said that “nothing—no regional adventure, no private interests, no faithfulness to any cause whatsoever—is worth launching a conflict in Lebanon over. Lebanon’s integrity, security and sovereignty must be preserved,” he added.
This was not the first time Macron has been critical of Israel and Netanyahu.
In March, he said that the forcible transfer of Gazans from Rafah ahead of a prospective Israeli military operation in the city would constitute a “war crime.”
The French president further stated that Paris was planning to circulate a draft resolution at the U.N. Security Council calling for “an immediate and lasting ceasefire.”
Post a Comment