Let's be honest here: Kamala Harris does not know much. But there is one thing she knows that she is certain she does not want to talk about.
In fact, she's so certain about it that she brings it up at every opportunity. Which makes people wonder all the more what it is that she is so insistently reluctant to discuss.
Which is the whole point for her.
Americans, I believe, dodged two bullets last year. One narrowly missed the head of Donald Trump during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. The other occurred at the ballot box by soundly avoiding the presence of an intellectual dimwit in the White House.
Despite her defeat, Kamala Harris is still inserting herself into the American consciousness these days in a marathon public relations campaign to sell her book on the disastrous $1.5 billion presidential campaign that she led into a crushing historic defeat.
That came after Joe Biden was unceremoniously forced off the ticket and Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer dual-handedly propped Harris up as the party's replacement leader in the November election against you-know-who.
The two pols did that not because Harris was the best candidate, mind you. Not because she would make a good president. Or even a decent one. Or because she has any semblance of the intellectual qualifications of a national leader.
But because those two aged, self-appointed leaders of the Democrat Party cynically did not want the hell-to-pay if they did not let the first black female vice president get shellacked on her own. Then maybe, once and for all, they'd be rid of the mental midget who was Biden's bald-faced bid for black votes, never mind her being a heartbeat away from the commander in chief chair and the nuclear launch codes.
The desperate move by two Democrat old-timers discarded the party's entire primary schedule rigged to ensure Biden's re-nomination by simply ignoring nearly 17 million Democrat primary votes and absolutely none for Harris.
In this week's audio commentary I describe the former vice president's book-selling campaign for what it really is and some of the silly things Harris has said, while she knows precisely who to blame for the historic election failure — and it's not her.
Which you can hear here:
This week's Sunday column discussed the mainstream news media's selective coverage of perceived divisions within the two major political parties, highlighting alleged splits within the president's Republican Party and ignoring or quickly passing over similar developments among Democrats.
It also anticipated more signs of political independence from Republicans in Congress as next November's midterm elections draw closer and the members focus more on self-preservation than loyalty to their leader in the White House.
This is all normal pre-election stuff. What's unusual this time is the infighting and political inertia within the Democrat Party which has yet to publicly atone for or address internally their responsibility for the years-long coverup of their incapacitated president, Joe Biden, and the ultimately preposterous bid to prop him up in office for another four years.
One result is the party clinging to aged leadership lacking energy and any fresh ideas to offer voters except the same failed "Trump is bad" mantra of the past decade. I wrote:
In an age of shorter lifespans, (the Founding Fathers) set minimum ages to get into Congress (25 for the House, 30 for the Senate). But they did not anticipate career politicians and, thus, neglected to set a maximum age.
As one result, California’s Nancy Pelosi, who’s 85, will have been in the House for 39 years when she leaves. Democrat Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois will have been in Congress 44 years when he exits in 2027.
The most recent audio commentary discussed the ominous upcoming mayoralty of Zohran Mamdani in New York City. The Muslim takes office January 1 with a long list of radical promises and statements, including the need to abolish police and globalize the intifada, an Arabic word for uprising, rebellion, or resistance to authority.
Obviously, free speech applies to people like him. But his views and radical policies raise serious questions about the municipal stability of the nation's most populous city as we approach the 25th anniversary of the 9/11 Muslim terror attacks that killed close to 3,000 people there that day.
Will the annual solemn observance of that horror be a commemoration or a celebration in an American city that is now home to some one million Muslims?
