by STEPHEN KRUISER
The resignation of Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle wasn’t much of a surprise, especially after the bipartisan calls for her job on Monday. She will no doubt be replaced with another bureaucrat who is as monumentally incompetent as she is.
After the Sunday shakeup and the Monday adjustment, things settled back more into campaign mode.
I wrote here about the Trump-Vance campaign issuing a press release to calm supporters down about any “honeymoon” polling bump that Harris might receive, which was a smart move.
Since it was announced on Sunday that Harris would be the “anointee” — nominee doesn’t really fit here — conservatives on social media have been have a field day attacking her rather prurient origin story. I admit that I briefly partook in the mockery, but that’s sort of my function here. If an opportunity to be an off-color imbecile presents itself, I have a professional obligation to take advantage of it.
My good friend Stephen Green wrote an excellent column (which I highlighted in “Shot of Vodka) yesterday explaining why conservative men should avoid going down that road. He explains in great detail how that can go off the rails. This is the point that stuck with me:
It also distracts from Harris’s horrible policy record going back more than 20 years ago to her political start in the Bay Area. If there’s one thing the Harris-[BLANK] campaign doesn’t want to talk about, it’s policy — not hers, not Joe’s. Three-plus years of Bidenomics and foreign policy fails need to be hung around her neck like the fetid, decaying albatross they are. All else is distraction and almost certain to backfire with a voting group that can be swayed on policy.
Bingo.
Kamala Harris’s political baggage has baggage of its own. There’s enough to attack and tear apart there to last three elections. If the focus is on that, she won’t be a political player for much longer.
The entire Democratic Party has lurched far to the left in the 21st century. Kamala Harris is on the left fringe of her already radically progressive party. My Townhall colleague Rebecca Downs writes that Harris’s voting record while in the United States Senate put her to the left of Bernie Sanders.
Over at our sister site Bearing Arms, my friend Cam Edwards covers Harris’s history of trying to take away the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans, going back to her days in California.
Harris’s greatest areas of vulnerability, of course, are her radical left policy positions on immigration and her disastrous tenure as Joe Biden’s “Border Czar.” The disaster on the southern border wrought by the Biden administration remains the number one issue in this election, regardless of who the Dem candidate is. The fact that Harris was the titular head presiding over the nightmare makes the attack ads write themselves.
Donald Trump has been locked in, keeping the border front and center in the campaign. He’s going to make this rough going for the new Dem candidate.
She is a dyed in the wool communist. Her nickname, The Cackling California Communist fits her well. Her stated policy positions are antithetical to America. It is no wonder obama got a boner in a visit to California during his time as president. He might have been in touch with willie or montel and in a rare heterosexual moment was sexually excited by fantasizing about a potential hookup.
Usually, a Presidential candidate chooses a VP that will either enhance their attributes or provide something that may be missing. Obama chose Robin Ware/Robert L. Peters/JRB Ware/Pedo Peter/idiot Biden, for instance, to provide “experience” and “wisdom”. Hey… nobody thinks it works EVERY time. So, who… or what will Kamala choose?
She either goes all in and chooses another box-checking far, far left radical socialist or she chooses a moderate, someone that is the polar opposite of her and what the majority of the party now embraces. What would be the point of that?