Things That Make Me Laugh: Book of Kamala, Chapter 1

For forty days following the palace coup that jettisoned President(ish) Joe Biden from the 2024 presidential race, and elevated co-conspirator Vice President(ish) Kamala Harris, the “Joyful” campaign her handlers fashioned included no press conferences or interviews. All of Kamala’s public appearances were mercifully brief, tightly-managed and scripted.

(As an aside, it’s ironically amusing that the party claiming to “save our democracy” actually violated every democratic standard, including their own, by cancelling 14 million Democrats’ primary votes cast to re-nominate Joe Biden, to replace him with Biden’s co-failure, a woman who received zero primary votes.)

In order to convince voters she’s electable, Harris has flip-flopped on a number of her previously-expressed, unpopular, left-liberal positions, none of which the nominee publicly disavowed. Instead, she’s relied on anonymous aides to leak her newly-minted “centrist” positions to a fawning press disinterested in pinning Kamala down on much of anything.

The Telegraph’s Michael Deacon observed: “What makes [the mainstream media’s] behavior…so remarkable is not that they’re being partisan. It’s that they’re willing to be partisan even though the object of their adulation has been giving them absolutely nothing in return. They’re cheerleading for someone who won’t even speak to them.”

Media expect politicians to dodge questions, but, normally, they have opportunities to ask them. Former President Donald Trump and his running mate routinely appear, unscripted, even in hostile venues.

But, finally, after a bidding war to identify the friendliest, most-cooperative, least aggressive “inquisitor(s),” Harris agreed to a pre-recorded interview with an adoring media fan-girl, CNN’s Dana Bash.

It’s funny enough that Harris insisted on a pre-taped interview that could be – and was – favorably edited, but it’s absolutely hilarious that a woman who aspires to become America’s “#Girl-Boss” insisted on including “emotional support” in the hulking form of her male running mate, Governor Tim Walz, who signed a Minnesota bill mandating menstrual products in high school boys’ restrooms.

It was not a good look. In fact, Walz’s inclusion was insulting to truly capable women, and it raised concerns about Harris’s ability to handle prime time, as well as the type of president she would be. Perhaps as importantly, it highlighted how little faith her handlers have in Kamala’s ability to make a rational case for her election.

Harris gave vacuous responses to lame questions, and Bash seemed unconcerned about getting actual answers.

Bash’s softballs allowed Harris to repeatedly “explain,” often in identical, clearly-memorized words, that, although her policy positions may have flip-flopped, her “values” remain unchanged…whatever that means…

Questioned about the open border, Harris tossed another of her infamous word salads: “…the root causes work that I did as vice president, that I was asked to do by the president has actually resulted in a number of benefits…”

Uh-huh…benefits! …And it got worse from there.

The only softball Bash didn’t lob up was, “Your opponent is literally Hitler. How does that make you feel?”

If Kamala possesses any core values, none were evident.

Unpressured, Walz spoke only briefly, dismissing his stolen valor scandal and other falsehoods about his military service as “bad grammar.”

It seemed like longer, but CNN edited actual questioning down to about eighteen minutes. If those eighteen minutes were Harris’s “best,” the ones edited out must have been fully disqualifying.

Equally entertaining were the negotiations Harris’s handlers conducted to establish a format for the only debate to which they/she would agree. But, even the cheerleaders at Harris-friendly ABC denied Kamala’s demand for a sit-down format – with notes.

Apparently, nothing says “confidence” and “grasp of the issues” like crib sheets!

Arguably the funniest campaign item to emerge so far has been Catharine Rampell’s Washington Post column in which she declared Doug Emhoff (Mr. Harris), whose first marriage ended after he impregnated his family’s babysitter, “a progressive sex symbol” and “modern female fantasy.”

Try to control yourselves, ladies!

The most amusing – but otherwise incomprehensible – paradox of the campaign may be the aversion of certain married women to a successful former president’s “character,” but who are willing to vote for Kamala Harris, an otherwise-inept woman who, in her twenties, started her career in “public service” as the “side piece” of a married California power broker thirty years her senior.

Ironically, Harris/Walz ads espouse “family values.”

Seriously, though, candidate Kamala Harris may be an amusing lightweight, but a President(ish) Harris would be no laughing matter.

https://www.pottsmerc.com/2024/09/01/jerry-shenk-things-that-make-me-laugh-book-of-kamala-chapter-1/