To keep or not to keep (Kamala Harris). That is the question.
Or should I say that’s the dilemma Democrats face these days as they look ahead to the all-too-crucial 2024 election, where liberals desperately hope to keep control of the White House while odds favor the Republicans to regain a majority in the senate (and stay in power in the House) and thus give the socialism-promoting faction a meaningful policy say on the direction of the United States late into this decade.
Looking at history, it’s safe to claim the second spot on either party’s ticket has rarely played an important role in the pair’s ultimate success, though this cycle, with two likely presidential nominees over the age of 75, the next-in-line issue has taken preeminence for lots of voters. The Republican Party has its Donald Trump impasse, as in, who will complement Trump and potentially make him more palatable to the general electorate? And the Democrats have their own “Senile president Joe Biden is too old and therefore, he might not make it through term two” quandary.
It's strange being so open about the possibility of Biden experiencing some sort of debilitating physical or mental failure during the campaign, or, God forbid, during his second four years in the Oval Office. But reality is reality, and the either/or possibilities of Joe Biden winning in 2024 inevitably conjures up the sickening predicament of Kamala Harris being only a heartbeat away from delivering a State of the Union address and ruining what’s left of the United States in the process.
Democrats wonder whether Harris is even worth retaining. In a piece titled “Asset or liability? VP Harris’ political skills under the gun in the 2024 presidential race”, The Washington Times’ Seth McLaughlin wrote:
“[T]he prevailing wisdom is that Mr. Biden will swap out his 2020 basement strategy for a like-minded 2024 Rose Garden approach that allows him to lean into the power of the presidency with well-choreographed events highlighting his strengths and downplaying his weaknesses. If so, Ms. Harris could slide into more of a featured role.
“Tim Murtaugh, vice president of communication strategy at the political consulting firm National Public Affairs, said that would be good for Republicans. Mr. Murtaugh is a former campaign spokesman for Mr. Trump.
“’Kamala Harris is really bad at politics,’ Mr. Murtaugh said, noting that her 2020 presidential bid flamed out before a single vote was cast in the Democratic nominating contests. ‘She’s been an even bigger disaster as vice president, and her public approval numbers show that. So it’s good for all Republicans to have Harris front and center,’ he said.”
One would certainly suppose Murtaugh is correct. Not only are Harris’s approval ratings awful, there’s really no discernible way for her to improve them, because, well, Kamala herself is politically and personally putrid. Her background, time in office (in California as the state’s AG, as a senator for a few years and now as Vice President) and debatable advancement strategy makes Harris akin to kryptonite to America’s Super Man.
Many, many Democrats must wake up in the morning, envision Kamala as their 2024 backup to senile Joe, and wonder to themselves, “How the heck did we get into this mess?”
Democrats have dug themselves quite a hole with Kamala as emblematic of the party’s probable future. On the one hand you’ve got what appears to be a majority of Democrat voters who value “electability” above all other qualities for their liberal party ticket – and these people see Harris as a drag on an already supremely challenged top of the duo – and on the other you’ve got the party’s most loyal voter group, black women, all-but threatening to rain “racist! sexist!” accusations down on the Democrat elites should they even think about removing their affirmative action symbol for progress and achievement.
Going back to 2020, one wonders whether the Democrat powers-that-be who were whispering (or shouting?) in senile Joe Biden’s ear even pondered the dilemma they would find themselves in four years’ hence when it came to selecting a vice president to run alongside a then 81-year-old broken down goat senile Joe, should he run for reelection.
I honestly believe Democrats didn’t even consider the remote (to them) possibility, since Biden was already pretty far gone in 2020; so to surmise that he’d be stupid (senile?) enough to try for a second term? Preposterous! Therefore, the thinking likely was that 2024 would represent a fresh opportunity to choose from a bench full of liberal up-and-comers such as gayer-than-gay Pete Buttigieg or kookier than kooky Latina Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or blacker than black Maxine Waters.
Okay, probably not 84-year-old (now) Waters, but you get the idea. How about Cori Bush as a future Democrat leader? The Missouri “The Squad” member is only 46!
How could the Democrat poohbahs fail to foresee that Kamala Harris would be a huge issue in 2024 if senile Joe opted to retain his squatter’s rights on the White House? Democrats may be evil, but they’re not stupid (they leave that up to Republicans as the “Stupid Party”). Even back then, Democrats had to figure Biden’s age would be a huge bone of contention were he to run in 2024, and therefore, whomever he chose to be his running mate in 2020 would be viewed as the next-in-line.
And don’t argue they were simply unaware of how awful Kamala was as a national politician. They’d had well over a half year’s worth of public appearances, debate performances, establishment media reports, background checks, vetting scrutiny and decades of photos of Harris with old dinosaur Willie Brown and celebrities like Montel Williams to know that she was radioactive to any Americans with an ounce of common sense.
Not to mention there was the more recent footage of Harris grilling Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominees during their confirmation hearings. In case anyone didn’t realize how awful a person Kamala was, they need only return to her condescending interrogation of the distinguished Brett Kavanaugh during the Democrats’ official witch hunt in 2018.
Yet, in the emotion of the season in turbulent 2020, Democrats called up Kamala and offered her the world’s potentially second-most powerful position just so senile Joe could fulfill his promise to choose a biological female as his right-hand swamp creature. It was a disaster then and the fallout now is even worse. With a few years’ worth of experience, most rational folks gather that Kamala Harris was the worst selection senile Joe could’ve made.
Heck, even Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren would’ve been leaps and bounds better than cackling Kamala. Warren is heartily embarrassing as a whiter than white bread 1/1024th Cherokee claimant, but Democrats don’t care about reality. “Pocahontas” almost never cackles and to watch her eyes bug out of her granny glasses when she speaks is kind of amusing, don’t you think?
Democrats must’ve considered a switcheroo for Warren, Senator Amy Klobuchar or (insert liberal Democrat female here) for Kamala at some point, but by then, it was too late. To dump Harris after her disastrous trips abroad or guffaw-inducing domestic appearances would have led to intra-party strife. And Democrats couldn’t deal with a distraction while they were attempting to ram through senile Joe’s “Build Back (More) Better” socialism agenda while simultaneously working to ensure Donald Trump was irreparably damaged by Nancy Pelosi’s January 6 committee.
Compared with their ultimate mission – to get Donald Trump – tucking Kamala into the background was small potatoes.
But now there’s more urgency involved with keeping – or not keeping – Kamala Harris as Joe Biden’s trusty (crusty?) sidekick. As McLaughlin’s report indicated, Republican candidates (such as Nikki Haley) have started using the Kamala issue as a reason to vote against Democrats. It’s part of Haley’s “they’re (Biden and Trump) too old!” line of campaign persuasion, but nevertheless, the Republican candidate’s words still ring true.
I’m obviously not privy to Democrat conversations, but party insiders must be thinking that somehow getting rid of Biden before the 2024 election would add a bonus of ridding themselves of the Kamala problem as well. Ever since Biden announced his reelection bid, Democrats appear to have caught a serious case of buyer’s remorse, as though they’ve been saying to themselves all along, “I didn’t think he’d really do it (run for reelection).”
Some of them, I’m sure, wish they’d spoken up in early 2020 when they had the chance. Who knows, perhaps they didn’t give the notion of Harris taking over for an incapacitated senile Joe as something they wanted to contemplate. After all, broken-down Biden has been part of the Democrat leadership conversation for decades. He was always there, like a carbuncle on a rump that just won’t heal.
In 2024, however, that pus-filled skin lesion could fester and burst, taking a lot of Democrats down with it.
There’s no clear solution for the Democrats’ Kamala Harris enigma. Cutting Kamala loose at this juncture could have disastrous intra-party consequences with several key constituencies, yet keeping her in place could bring even more serious results for the Democrats’ chances to win in 2024. I don’t envy Democrats as the months go by and they watch their chances of winning fizzle.
Joe Biden economy
Biden cognitive decline
January 6 Committee
Build Back Better
Marjorie Taylor Green
2024 presidential election