ID for Thee, Not for Me: Harris Campaign Requires ID to Enter Rally in AZ, but Not to Vote

Do you know what the thing is about principles, as opposed to politics? Principles are consistent. Principles, as opposed to politics, apply equally in all circumstances. That's why so few politicians, especially Democrats, have anything even remotely approaching principles; they are all about The Side.

As an example: If, say, a presidential candidate was virulently against requiring voters to show ID before casting a ballot, then they should be open to letting would-be voters enter a campaign rally without showing ID. Right?

Not if you're Kamala Harris.

Vice President Harris was mocked online for requiring campaign rallygoers to present a government-issued ID upon entry, despite the Democratic presidential nominee opposing voter ID laws.
Ahead of Harris’ rally alongside vice presidential running mate Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz in Arizona on Friday, her campaign sent out an email advising that only confirmed RSVPs will be admitted.
The email said those on the RSVP list must present a matching government-issued photo ID in order to be admitted to the venue, KTAR reported.

Now, let's go on record here: There's nothing wrong with making rally attendees show an ID to get in, especially when there is an RSVP list. That's a perfectly reasonable requirement, and in our modern world where one has to have a photo ID for almost every essential facet of life - holding employment, opening a bank account, purchasing or driving a car or truck, obtaining any type of credit, buying a glass of beer, buying a firearm - the list goes on - there's no reason to balk at requiring an ID to enter a political rally. This is especially true considering that there has already been an attempt on the life of a presidential candidate this year.

But it's the hypocrisy that galls. This is a woman who has been adamantly against voter ID requirements for years, and she makes up the most ridiculous reasons for her opposition.

Speaking specifically about measures requiring IDs in order to vote, Harris continued: "Because in some peoples' minds, that means, well, you're going to have to Xerox or photocopy your ID to send it in to prove you are who you are. Well, there are a whole lot of people —especially people who live in rural communities — that there's no Kinkos, there's no Office Max, near them."

Speaking as someone who lives in a rural community, this is pure horse squeeze, and insulting to boot.

It's the hypocrisy, along with the dishonesty, though, that makes this candidate - and her running mate - so intolerable.

See Related: Kamala Harris Just Can't Stop Lying

Stolen Valor Walz Strikes Again With Misleading Congressional Challenge Coin

What's even more galling about this issue is that this event is taking place in Arizona, which, as my friend and colleague Becca Lower noted on Saturday, is at ground zero for a related issue, namely, a law requiring proof of citizenship (e.g. an ID) before registering to vote. Just another of the great ironies one so often finds in politics:

The issue exploded on X immediately:

X users began sharing screenshots of the email and lambasted Harris for perceived hypocrisy.

"Voter ID is racist, but you can’t get into a Kamala rally without ID," actor Kevin Sorbo wrote to his 2 million followers.
"So let me get this straight: Requiring ID to vote is racist… But requiring ID to attend a Kamala Harris ‘rally’ is NOT racist?" Nick Sortor wrote to his more than 448,000 followers.
"You need photo ID to get into an invite-only Kamala Harris event, but not to vote?" another user, Ian Haworth, echoed.

The only comment one may have for these X users is "What did you expect? Ethical consistency--from Kamala Harris?"

Principles are consistent. If one holds, as a matter of principle, that somehow requiring an ID to vote is racist, then so much as requiring an ID to enter a political rally is racist. Both are, after all, taking part in the political process. But for Kamala Harris, it's principals, not principles, the latter of which she has none. She is, as I have said and will keep saying, not only dishonest, but a hypocrite, and for those and many other reasons, she is utterly unqualified to be president.