Remember when Joe Biden named Kamala Harris as the frontier king and we all watched her omit anything from the crisis?
You just believe that you do.
because Harris was not a hero. Not technically, since we do n’t have czars in the United States. Anyone knows that. What Joe actually meant when he said Kamala had “lead our efforts” to resolve the boundary crisis was that the vice president would look into some of the “root causes” on the weekends and perhaps take a few political trips or things. But emperor, c’mon.
And though” czar” has been the casual title for high-level national visits for a century, the idea is obviously baffling. The New York Times felt compelled to explain to its suddenly baffled audience why Republicans keep referring to Kamala Harris as the “border king” in an article that has for decades been called” czars.” The Forbes upstarts took a different course by retrospectively correcting pieces that label Kamala a king.
Do you recall that Harris assisted in the rescue of BLM protesters in the summer of 2020?
Nah, you do n’t.
If, as one CBS’s online explains, Harris did n’t, you know, essentially offer any money to Minnesota Freedom Fund, she merely made some trivial funding appeals to her millions of followers to raise money to help bail out violent protesters. If you ca n’t see the distinction, they ca n’t help you.
Of course, the internet will use a variety of methods to create this new powerful presidential candidate called” Kamala Harris” by rewriting history with pedantic, hyper-literal reality checks.
Another approach is to let the prospect simply modify her own background. Example: The other day, The Hill reported that” Harris does no help fracking restrictions: Campaign official”, which is an extremely strange declaration, right? Politico went even dumber, noting that” Harris campaign pledges she wo n’t ban fracking after Trump accusation”.
By” Trump accusation”, Politico means that Harris promised, firmly and on the report, to ban fracking nationwide. Referring to it as an “accusation” insinuates that it’s a questionable level rather than a dangerous reality.
The media dissected Mitt Romney’s persabortion-evolution/story?id=17443452″ target=”_blank” rel=”noreferrer noopener”>onal advancement and habortion-evolution/story?id=17443452″ target=”_blank” rel=”noreferrer noopener”>onesty in hundreds of pieces when he skimmed between abortion-evolution/story?id=17443452″ target=”_blank” rel=”noreferrer noopener”>on and off about the abortiabortion-evolution/story?id=17443452″ target=”_blank” rel=”noreferrer noopener”>on debate. Trump may include tempered his pro-choice rhetoric, but no abortion-evolution/story?id=17443452″ target=”_blank” rel=”noreferrer noopener”>one will be held accountable for falsely accusing him of backing a federal ban. But I assure you, if you maintain Kamala is pro-fracking you may point checked.
It’s as 2020 rarely happened. Kamala will never be asked to explain her “evolution”. She will be able to untether herself from the past as her radical positions in the Senate and as a principal candidate became untenable. Or, perhaps better, she can just disregard them.
Note that JD Vance’s absurd comment about childless cat ladies has now dominated the political conversation, defining him among millions of voters, while Harris ‘ embrace of a range of utterly authoritarian nutso, half-baked policy ideas has n’t even been discussed in order to understand the political media’s capacity for narrative-building.
Kamala has previously distanced herself from the Green New Deal, and she backed it. The Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez-penned plan not just proposes banning all air travel, meats, and most explosive engines, it promises every American who is “unable or afraid” to operate a test, among dozens of different communist prescriptions.
We have n’t even heard from Kamala, who claims in a press release that she never supported this nonsense.
Hey, the rabbit female thing is very important, but will the media be asking Kamala if she intends to keep her end-of-the-life promise without the support of Congress? Or to legalize illegal border intersections? Or describe her support for phasing out private insurance altogether. Or why she thinks “radical Islamic terrorism” is n’t a real thing? Or why does she think that every American if “end up in the same place” rather than start with the same options?
While Harris has not yet, as far as I can show, explained why she supports defunding the police, Vance will continue to support his opinion about the cat woman. Although I believe that anyone who has n’t confessed their racial crimes was already exposed to a round of deceiving over the actual meaning of “defund,” which is complex, complex, and probably beyond the scope of their grasp.
Whatever, delightful to Kamalot!
None of this even comes to mind when one mentions Harris ‘ shameless, unctuous, and servile political policy, a starry coronation unlike which the media has not covered since Barack Obama’s halo.
Today, I’m skeptical that the social media pleasure over Kamala’s rising “grassroots” candidacy is true. Professional Democrats, without a doubt, are pleased to have a member who can move up a flight of stairs and give a talk using a dialect other than slur whisper. Are standard people? Whatever the case, they would n’t have to completely reinvent her past if she was as impressive, compelling, moderate, and exhilarating as the media is currently pretending.
