This week, Kamala Harris’ new book is set for release, but in the meantime, dribs and drabs of its contents are emerging.
The former VP is also busy doing the media circuit, where she has been proving America right in terms of the 2024 presidential election outcome.
For instance, Harris flubbed an answer trying to explain why she didn’t pick Pete Buttigieg as her running mate, and now she has resorted to tossing around incendiary rhetoric about Donald Trump because, quite frankly, that is all she and the Democratic Party have right now.
It would appear that Harris has decided she is no longer going to run cover for Joe Biden, but in the process, she is exposing the fact that she blatantly lied to the American people about the former president's capacity to carry out a second term.
When Harris was asked about her decision not to speak up about Biden's decline and whether it would have mattered if she did, she responded, "I don't know. I don't know, but I can only take responsibility for myself and on reflection, you know, and I talk about it in the context of asking a question of myself, 'was that grace to not bring it up to him, or was it reckless?'”
She continued, "And on my part, I do reflect on that and feel that it was -- it was a recklessness about not raising it with him."
That is a pretty damning statement, and it is not exactly the way to win the hearts and minds of people who already think you are inadequate.
Harris appeared on The Rachel Maddow Show, where she was pressed about her admission that Gov. Tim Walz was not her first choice as a running mate. She admitted in her book that she really wanted Buttigieg.
The former VP, however, did not think the country was ready for a Black woman president and gay vice president at the same time, so she went with Walz. Maddow pressed her on this, stating, “To say that he couldn’t be on the ticket effectively because he was gay, it’s hard to hear.”
The former VP insisted that was not the case, then tried to explain by saying, “My point is, as I write in the book, is that I was clear that in 107 days, in one of the most hotly contested elections for president of the United States against someone like Donald Trump, who knows no floor -- to be a Black woman running for president of United States and as a vice presidential running mate a gay man, with the stakes being so high, it made me very sad. But I also realized it would be a real risk.”
So, like Maddow said, she didn’t pick him because he was gay.
Harris then went after private industry for caving to Trump and his demands, stating, "I worked closely with the private sector over many years, and I always believed that if push came to shove, those titans of industry would be guardrails for our democracy, for the importance of sustaining democratic institutions. And one by one by one, they have been silent. They have been, you know, yes, I use the word feckless."
She continued, "Democracy sustains capitalism. Capitalism thrives in a democracy. And right now, we are dealing with -- as I called him at my speech on the ellipse -- a tyrant. We used to compare the strength of our democracy to communist dictators. That's what we're dealing with right now under Donald Trump. And these titans of industry are not speaking up.”
Harris concluded, "But at some point, they’ve got to stand up for the sake of the people who rely on all of these institutions to have integrity and to at some point be the guardrails against a tyrant who is using the federal government to execute his whim and fancy because of a fragile ego.”
I don’t agree with everything that Trump does, obviously, but I do agree with the president trying to ignite American manufacturing, and I surely agree with him demanding that news agencies and the like tell the truth and not push left-wing propaganda. Dems are crying censorship now, but look how they shut down the right when Biden and Barack Obama were in office. The truth… nothing more than that. We should not have to beg news shows to give the full picture rather than a biased slant. That is not censorship; it is setting a standard. If I published purposeful misinformation, I would expect to be disciplined in some way by my publisher. If I make an honest mistake, I should be expected to correct it. That is really all we are asking for here.
