Commentary
I thought I had laid out a pretty convincing piece on why the thought of Kamala Harris as president of the United States is unfathomable in my September 16, 2024 edition, “Kamala Harris: The Left’s Pathetic Candidate,” but there’s more to be said.
Recognizing it’s the silly season of politics, I should have concluded with, “to be continued.”
There was Oprah Winfrey’s town hall and the reaction to it, columnist Peggy Noonan’s reference to Harris as an “artless dodger,” and wait for it … an endorsement by the technical journal Scientific American, for starters.
First of all … Who am I to criticize the decision of Winfrey, who has built a career valued at $2.8 billion? But, why host a town hall after her endorsement at the Democrat National Convention, said to have been viewed by some 20 million people?
Winfrey told conventioneers and TV viewers – “Very soon, we’re going to be teaching our daughters and sons,” about how Harris, the child of immigrants, Winfrey said, “grew up to become the 47th president of the United States. That is the best of America.”
After adroitly using Harris’s slogan, “We’re not going back,” she repeated the best of America line, saying, “We’re all Americans, and together, let’s choose Kamala Harris.”
When asked how she would address illegal immigration, Harris gave a meandering three-minute response that eventually got around to the bill that she claims died in Congress at candidate Trump’s request. The truth is that the bill did not solve the problem of the quantities of migrants allowed to cross the border.
Listening to Harris’s memorized statements and non-answers to questions – all lacking policy specifics – during the town hall, I just have to believe that Winfrey had to be thinking to herself, ‘what was I thinking?’
As a billionaire, Winfrey has the problem of connecting with everyday Americans on issues of wealth and class. When Harris talked about her plan to offer $50,000 tax relief for small businesses, Winfrey leaned forward, seemingly wanting to appear interested, there was an obvious disconnect for Winfrey as she joked, “That’s a tiny business.”
Yet, Winfrey told People magazine, “I think what she means for women of the world is so extraordinary. For women here in the United States, we can even measure it.
When she follows with, “Because to see someone who looks like you in this role, you see what’s possible for yourself. Period,” you have to wonder if her indorsement is by DEI. Recognize that she also endorsed Barack Obama.
Megyn Kelly, now the popular host of her own show on SiriusXM, spoke of loving to watch Winfrey as she was growing up, but watching the town hall she said it dawned on her that Winfrey’s “a propagandist trying to shove messaging down my throat of whatever she believes not what’s real.”
In her recent opinion column in the Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan wrote that Harris “evades every question of substance,” referring to her as an “artless dodger.”
“While she loves to say what divides us isn’t as big as what unites us, in terms of policy, she is coming across as wholly without substance,” Noonan writes, but having being elevated to candidate status two months ago, she notes, ”That is enough time at least to start making clear what she believes, wants and means to do. She hasn’t.
“This week she couldn’t or wouldn’t answer a single question straight, and people could see it. She is an artless dodger.”
Noonan writes, “The race is deadlocked with six weeks to go and if you’re an undecided, unsure or wavering voter it looks like Awful vs. Empty.” “Awful” being former President Trump.
Referring to the Awful vs. Empty vote facing Americans, she writes, “Awful is – well, awful, Noonan writes, “But he was president for four years, we didn’t all explode, institutions held, the threatened Constitution maintained. So, maybe that’s their vote.”
The latest issue of Scientific American carries an editorial endorsing Harris. “There’s something a bit odd about a storied science magazine getting embroiled in the grubby world of politics,” writes Toby Young in his Spectator piece, “Scientific American is making a mistake by endorsing Kamala Harris.”
It is only the second time in the magazine’s 179-year history that the editors endorsed a candidate for president. Just four years ago the editors endorsed Joe Biden.
The editorial cites her positions on issues such as “the climate crisis,” “public health,” and “reproductive rights,” indicating they are “lit by rationality” and based on “reality,” “science,” and “solid evidence.”
Writer Young believes the editors perceive that Trump is more likely to cut federal spending on scientific research and public health, but suggests, “Wouldn’t it be more prudent for these panjandrums of the scientific establishment to remain above the political fray? After all, why would Trump give billions of dollars to a community that aligned itself with his opponent?
Reminding his supporters about the accomplishments of his first term, Trump frequently asks his rally audiences, “What have you got to lose? Vote Trump,” when, in fact, they have a lot to lose if they vote for Harris.
May God continue to bless the United States of America.
