Through the Looking Glass

This morning, it is starting to feel like everything is backwards. I haven’t finished my first cup of coffee or started on breakfast, and I’ve read a post by Debra Heine over at American Greatness about the Biden White House launching an effort to make Kamala Harris more popular.

As I read her post, I was reminded of Alice’s interchange with the White Queen in Through the Looking Glass.

“I can’t believe that!” said Alice.
“Can’t you?” the Queen said in a pitying tone. “Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes.”
Alice laughed. “There’s no use trying,” she said: “one can’t believe impossible things.”
“I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.

It may be that the White Queen is a core Democrat voter.

I Don’t Believe Her

Kamala Harris has spoken about her family’s multi-generation celebrations of Kwanzaa when she was growing up. She was raised by her mother, a recent immigrant from India. Her grandparents lived in India and Jamaica. I don’t believe her.

Perhaps an old family photo will turn up to prove me wrong.

Nothing to See Here. Move Along!

The Tennessee Star reports that Aric Thompson served as a Dominion Voting Systems (Dominion) technician representative in Fulton County, Georgia. Thomson is also Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign photographer. He describes her as his “long time client.”

BTW, I’m seeing reports of a server crash today in the Dominion hardware used in the Fulton County election system.

I’ll Wait to See

There are troubling accusations of various corrupt practices being used to …. I was looking for a polite way to say this, but I can’t think of one … to steal the Presidential election. I would not be surprised if some of them are true. I hope that enough will be exposed and shutdown by recount and legal processes so that the real choice of the American voters takes the oath of office next January.

I have no desire for four years of Biden family corruption and a White House alliance with the Deep State, but if Biden wins the election, President Harris will face a Congress with a Republican Senate and a smaller Democrat majority in the House. She’ll also be hemmed in by a federal judiciary that has a greater percentage of judges willing to operate within the bounds of the Constitution and statute law. A Harris administration would be doomed to be a failure on the order of those of Buchanan, Carter, and Obama (all of whom were Democrats). Things will get messy, and the 2022 midterm elections will offer the country an opportunity to turn away from the Democrats vision of America or to turn away from the nation’s heritage and become something I’d rather not contemplate.

The next few weeks will be interesting.

Hidin’ Biden’s Sidekick

Becca Lower has a post over at Red State that asks these questions—

“Where’s Kamala Harris?” Surely she wasn’t practicing up for her sole debate against Vice President Pence in early October. Notice that the media was completely consumed with defending Biden’s AWOL act — and no one was asking about his running mate’s whereabouts. Why the lid for Harris, too?

Harris is a weak candidate who dropped out without receiving a single caucus or primary vote, before any were even cast. Given that she was so off-putting that she couldn’t gin up a following among core Democrat voters last year, it’s not surprising that the Democrats want to keep her hidden from the public.

OTOH, if the Democrats win this November, the probability of Harris becoming President sometime the next term is essentially 1.000. That being the case, the voters would be better served if Harris replaces Biden in the debates with Trump.

A Basic Principle of Hiring

I can’t figure out why Biden picked Kamala is the title of a post over at Bookworm Room.

I’ve tried really hard to figure out what Kamala brings to the ticket and I’m stumped. Here are all the things that I think are problems with Kamala. What’s stunning is that these problems cut across the entire political spectrum in America. It’s hard to see how anyone could like her …

and he goes on to list some of the major problems she brings to the ticket. She has something in her background to offend every member of the Democrats’ base as well as most swing voters.

1.  She isn’t “African-American.” Her mother is from India, her father is from a Jamaican family of former slaver owners, and although she was born in California, she was raised in Canada.
2. Although her husband is a Jew and she has spoken out in favor of Israel’s right to self-defense, she favors the Iran nuclear deal which would allow Israel’s existential enemy to develop nuclear weapons.
3. Her husband is a white male.
4. As Tulsi Gabbard pointed out, Harris was the scourge of the underclass when she was a District Attorney and State Attorney General in California.
5. She was so unpopular in the primaries that she dropped out before any votes were cast.
6. She’s a hard leftist who Marxist views don’t play well with either of the moderates still remaining in the party. (And won’t attract many swing voters.)
7. Her attacks on Catholic judges haven’t been well received by the practicing Catholics left in the party. (And won’t attract many swing voters.)
8. She isn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer, and her intellectual shortcomings will be obvious in any debate with VP Pence.
9. She sounds like a scolding Karen.

So why did she get the nomination?

FWIW, I believe we’re seeing a basic principle of management at work—First-rate people hire first-rate people; second-rate people hire third-rate people.

This November, we will see if the American people are first-rate or second-rate.

Recycling Campaign Slogans

Now that Joe Biden’s handlers have picked his VP nominee, it’s clear that they aren’t planning on an effective move toward the political center. While Kamala Harris isn’t a top pick for the AOC/Bernie wing of the party, she’s no moderate. Indeed, she’s distinctly to the left of Biden, and adding her to the ticket increases the contrast between the Biden and Trump campaigns. We’re being offered (as Barry Goldwater’s losing campaign put it) A Choice Not An Echo.

Perhaps the Trump campaign should recycle the winning 1920 slogan of A Return to Normalcy.

I’m Not Making This Up, You Know

A pro-abortion candidate for the Democrat’s presidential nomination tweeted this—Of course, dead babies can no longer be mistreated, but still …

BTW, when Harris was a prosecutor in California, she did nothing to change that state’s legal procedures which separate the children of detained parents from those parents.

Rule 5 Squared

Left-wing organizer Saul Alinsky’s Rule 5 states that “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” Kamala Harris set herself up for a dose of ridicule by allowing this obviously staged picture to be tweeted.Pro Tip #1: Experienced cooks don’t leave the packaging for raw chicken lying on a kitchen counter.

Pro Tip # 2: If you want an article of clothing to appear to be something used everyday, wash it at least once in order to remove the “just out of the box” creases.

Stacy McCain’s Rule 5 states that “Everybody loves a pretty girl.” Here’s a picture that ran in the Carroll County Times several years ago when Mrs. Hoge was running a personal cheffing business. 

Kamala Harris’ Handgun

Kamala Harris owns a handgun, so Peter Funt has written an OpEd for USA Today declaring that ownership of that gun disqualifies her for the 2020 Democrat nomination. I agree with Funt that she should be disqualified, but for a different reason. It’s not that she owns a gun, but that she’s told conflicting stories about owning a gun. She’s claimed that it was bought for personal protection when she was a prosecutor dealing with violent criminals and that she disposed of it when she left that job. But while campaigning in Iowa she said that she’s a gun owner (present tense), and a campaign aide said that the gun was bough years ago and kept locked up.

OTOH, Funt gets one thing partially correct in his OpEd.

[S]he has given voters a real choice: Back candidates who care enough about gun control to not own handguns, or support the only major Democratic contender who has one and won’t throw it away.

She’s not the only gun owner among the major Democrat contenders. Biden, O’Rourke, and Buttigieg own guns. But she does offer Democrats the choice of a candidate who believes that she is so special that the rules she would inflict on us shouldn’t apply to her. Such a politician would have much less conflict with her colleagues than one who thinks that everyone should play by the same rules.

Voting Rights for the Marathon Bomber

Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris have come out in favor of allowing Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to vote from prison. Jim Geraghty notes over at NRO that position might be a tough sell in some parts of the country.

One of the underappreciated aspects of the 2020 primary is how many contenders have spent their lives in very liberal communities and states and have never had to calibrate their stances and rhetoric to appeal to voters in a place like Ohio, or Florida, or Pennsylvania. Kamala Harris had to appeal to voters in San Francisco and then California as a whole; Bernie Sanders had to appeal to voters in Burlington and Vermont. I suspect “restore the Boston Marathon bomber’s voting rights” would not be a popular rallying cry in much of the country.

Harris has hedged her proposal during followup questioning, saying that we needed to have a conversation on the subject. She added, “There has to be serious consequences for the most extreme types of crimes.”

Given Harris’ views on gun control, she may want to rethink her position. After all, when Tsarnaev was on the run, he was armed with a handgun, he was under 21, and he too young to be eligible for a gun license in Massachusetts. Carrying a gun without a license a serious crime in Massachusetts which would have required a one-year mandatory minimum sentence if he’d been tried by the state rather than the feds.

Kamala Harris and Willie Brown

Some people have extramarital affairs. Generally, the cheating spouse(s) tries (try) to keep such an affair secret. Why? Well, the adjective cheating explains their motivation. Regardless of the outward cultural trends, most of us still have a core view of marriage as a monogamous partnership, and we still have moral qualms about one partner treating the other unfairly. That moral unease also attaches to the third party whether or not he or she is also cheating on his or her spouse as well. But that’s not exactly the issue I’m trying to address in this post.

Joan Walsh has a piece over at The Nation titled Kamala Harris Deserves Better Than Sexist Criticism About Her Personal Life. It’s tagged with the line

The 2020 presidential candidate has faced down creepy gossip about a past relationship for 20 years. It should stop—now.

I disagree.

I have no particular interest in any politician’s sex life per se. However, any information about a person’s behavior can have relevance on his fitness for a given job. Someone who has risen the ranks because of demonstrated competence is probably a better candidate for hiring or promotion than someone who advanced through unearned favoritism.

The Left’s neomarxism posits that all politics (indeed, all of life) is a struggle for power between opposing groups and that hierarchies use the false measures of competence as a means of oppression. Of course, most Leftists don’t really live their lives that way. For example they generally prefer to have their surgeries performed by successful graduates of medical schools. When push comes to shove, most people prefer competence.

The issue that Kamala Harris has placed before us is whether she is the best, most competent, candidate for President in 2020. All of her life, certainly all of her public life, should now be open for inspection and evaluation. Did she rise through the Bay Area and California political systems on her own competence? Or did she receive an unearned boost because she was someone’s “girlfriend”? If she purposefully engaged in such an affair to boost her career, how is that morally different from the corrupt predatory behavior exposed by the #MeToo movement? Does her career, taken as a whole, display competence or corruption?

Those are nontrivial questions, and a public discussion of them is now in order because of her candidacy.

Kamala Harris, ICE, and the Klan

During a hearing about confirmation of a new Director for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Kamala Harris suggested equivalence between ICE and the Ku Klux Klan. Recent data shows that over half of all ICE agents are Hispanic/Latino, and I doubt that 51% of the members of the Klan have ever been black. There doesn’t appear to be much equivalence there. OTOH, given that a recent lawsuit implied that Allen West is a white supremacist, such patently silly claims do seem to resonate with the Democrats’ political base, and Harris does seem to be running for the party’s 2020 nomination.