 |
| https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/scumbag-steve |
First off, you have to view the Kamala Harris phenomenon in the terms it makes sense to spend any time thinking about it: what it says about today's politics and especially today's Demorat Party and its allies/enablers.
In late 2018, CNN's supposed political experts said this:
But the 2018 election convinced us that Harris seems to be exactly what Democratic voters are telling the party and its politicians they want representing them going forward. A young-ish -- she's 54 -- non-white woman, Harris looks like the Democratic Party base these days. And if 2020 is anything like 2018, that's a very good place for her to be.
Add it all up, and we've got a new #1 on our 2020 rankings!
It says quite a bit about Dem/left politics and Dem media flaks that this is what passes for quality analysis.
Let's give a brief rundown of Harris' performance on the national stage, the details of which are already available in this blog.
The first time that I witnessed Harris on the national stage, in her opportunity to shine as it were, her interrogation of Brett Kavanaugh was slimy, bad-faith. This is the (then-)candidate who, within two months, CNN's so-called analysts tout as the best or most likely face of the Demorat party going into the next presidential election cycle. Anyway, how could anyone be impressed with her line of questioning which was supposed to show how tough she could be going up against Trump? For someone such as myself who could see through this little scummy and unimpressive charade for what it was, it would not come as a surprise that within a year her candidacy would be dead and buried.
Consider her choice of words upon announcing her candidacy - again, she and her supporters being under the impression that there is something impressive, admirable, tough, etc. about Harris:
“I can tell you of the cases where I really regret that we were not able to charge somebody that molested a child but the evidence wasn’t there.”
(Does it really matter if you spin this statement to "imply" that Harris was referring to admissible evidence? Can you imagine the reaction of Demorats far and wide if a Republican prosecutor said something like this? They immediately assume the worst for much less, when it's a Republican. This is obviously so; look at how they go out of their way every time to construe/spin a Trump statement as "racist" and try to shut down debate about his original point on that basis alone. You don't think these assholes are that pathetic? See the "Democrats" and "leftist losers" tags in this blog for the overwhelming evidence that they are, indeed, sadly, this pathetic.)
Perhaps if this was an isolated gaffe, we might leave open the possibility that these wicked words could come from a presidential-caliber person's mouth. But this was just par for the course for Scumbag Harris, and many, many Demorats are culpable for ignoring how this is so.
I've already detailed Scumbag Harris' shameful behavior and statements pertaining to sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh; my most conservatively worded discussion of this blatant scummery is here. The Kavanaugh episode is a big, bold-colored stain right in the middle of the Demorats' garments, a stain that one can fail to notice only by wearing partisan blinders. To reach a judgment before both sides are heard, and to unaccountably disregard exculpatory information, is not something an honest person, especially with a background in law, would do. Period. There is no explaining away this behavior that can make Harris look like non-scum.
Fast forward some months, to the time of the first Demorat '20 presidential debates, when Harris decided to go after front-runner Biden on racial issues. In doing so, Harris proved herself to be nothing other than a gratuitous, opportunistic, shallow, cynical and dishonest race-baiter. When Biden spoke of working with people one has severe differences with, using Southern segregationists as examples, Harris (along with Cory Booker, it should be noted) didn't address his point (about working with people one might even find seriously objectionable; the examples used are incidental to the point) but rather turned it into Biden being "too cozy" with segregationists. But that obvious non-sequitur wasn't enough for Harris, because in the subsequent debate she ambushed Biden on his civil rights record, thinking she was being impressive even though she was going after Demorat icon Obama's hand-picked VP. (Gee, if only she had put as much thought into the problem this raises as she put into having "young girl who rode a bus" t-shirts for sale on her website just as soon as she launched her busing-issue ambush, huh?)
Yet, somehow, this dishonest ambush briefly launched Harris to the top of the Demorat presidential polling.
Only weeks later, Scumbag Harris got a taste of her own medicine ambush-wise, when competitor Tulsi Gabbard called her out as a drug warrior and dirty prosecutor. All that Harris could do is shake her head as though such an ambush was totally unfair. The main difference this time around is that Gabbard's ambush had some teeth to it. And guess what: pretty much the split second Harris got this taste of her own medicine (only honest and factual this time around), her candidacy plummeted.
Her sinking candidacy was a tacit admission by primary voters that Harris simply didn't have what it takes to appeal to voters. But what ever gave the likes of CNN's political editors the impression that she did have what it takes? And did they really learn the lessons they should have about Scumbag Harris? Have Democrats generally learned anything? Have they learned anything from the leeway they extend to her that they'd never extend to their political opposition? Have they learned that maybe their zeal for identity politics falsely fed their view of Harris as somehow impressive or appealing? Do Demorats give (Demorat) women and people of color greater leeway to say stupid, dishonest, destructive things, to better avoid charges of racism and sexism if they call such things out? Do they openly acknowledge that Harris' dishonesty and scummery were key factors in her collapse, or is it merely left to tacit admission? Some of the Democrats blamed her failed candidacy on racism and sexism, proving that they don't get it and that they're willing to employ vile arguments and claims.
But here's a conclusion I find inescapable: There's lots of dishonesty, scummery, and intellectual bankruptcy in the Demorat Party and the American left in general, but Harris managed to stand out enough in that regard to turn off even many fellow Demorats. (It actually matters to them when a Demorat in good standing like Biden gets dishonestly smeared....) PHILOSOPHER'S QUESTION: What, then, is their threshold for being turned off by dishonesty, scummery and intellectual bankruptcy (from Demorats)? Right now, their threshold surely is way too high. Harris wasn't the only one in on the patently dishonest effort to smear and destroy Kavanaugh, after all. [Edit: And I sure as shit am not going to downplay the importance of the Kavanaugh episode: it shows Demorats' true colors when the chips of justice, truth, honesty, honor, consistency, etc. are down; and their selective willingness to believe the unbelievable speaks volumes. [Edit: Just the other day it was relayed to me that an acquaintance had referred to Kavanaugh as a "sex fiend" or words to that effect. Inasmuch as such zero-evidence notions are planted in the heads of people around the country, the 'rats have achieved much of their goal there.]] They don't reject Harris for her prominent role in that smear-job; if anything, they embrace her in that regard. How else did she manage to emerge as the front-runner in the wake of that vile spectacle?
I mean, gee, when you boil it down, philosopher-like, to the essential point, it is this:
She saw how well smearing Kavanaugh worked for her among Demorats; how else might she have gotten the impression that using smear tactics against Biden might also work for her?
PHILOSOPHER'S QUESTION: If that there question doesn't stimulate you to wonder just how much of an intellectual and moral cesspool today's Demorat Party (& allies/enablers) is, then what would?
[Edit: One of the Demorats' two articles of impeachment is about "obstruction of Congress." Let me put it in the simplest possible terms: Why would anyone in their right mind trust these Demorats to be fair and honest with any evidence provided to them? Why cooperate with proven scum like Adam Schiff unless one is compelled by a court to do so? [Edit: Speaking of Scumbag Schiff, he asserts - willfully disregarding the Mueller no-collusion findings - that Trump would cheat again as Schiff still claims Trump did in 2016. Fellow Demorats, by their complicit silence, appear just fine with such obvious dishonesty. Trump is supposed to willingly cooperate with this POS, and the complicit fellow scumbags, why?]]
Yet, somehow, this dishonest ambush briefly launched Harris to the top of the Demorat presidential polling.
Only weeks later, Scumbag Harris got a taste of her own medicine ambush-wise, when competitor Tulsi Gabbard called her out as a drug warrior and dirty prosecutor. All that Harris could do is shake her head as though such an ambush was totally unfair. The main difference this time around is that Gabbard's ambush had some teeth to it. And guess what: pretty much the split second Harris got this taste of her own medicine (only honest and factual this time around), her candidacy plummeted.
Her sinking candidacy was a tacit admission by primary voters that Harris simply didn't have what it takes to appeal to voters. But what ever gave the likes of CNN's political editors the impression that she did have what it takes? And did they really learn the lessons they should have about Scumbag Harris? Have Democrats generally learned anything? Have they learned anything from the leeway they extend to her that they'd never extend to their political opposition? Have they learned that maybe their zeal for identity politics falsely fed their view of Harris as somehow impressive or appealing? Do Demorats give (Demorat) women and people of color greater leeway to say stupid, dishonest, destructive things, to better avoid charges of racism and sexism if they call such things out? Do they openly acknowledge that Harris' dishonesty and scummery were key factors in her collapse, or is it merely left to tacit admission? Some of the Democrats blamed her failed candidacy on racism and sexism, proving that they don't get it and that they're willing to employ vile arguments and claims.
But here's a conclusion I find inescapable: There's lots of dishonesty, scummery, and intellectual bankruptcy in the Demorat Party and the American left in general, but Harris managed to stand out enough in that regard to turn off even many fellow Demorats. (It actually matters to them when a Demorat in good standing like Biden gets dishonestly smeared....) PHILOSOPHER'S QUESTION: What, then, is their threshold for being turned off by dishonesty, scummery and intellectual bankruptcy (from Demorats)? Right now, their threshold surely is way too high. Harris wasn't the only one in on the patently dishonest effort to smear and destroy Kavanaugh, after all. [Edit: And I sure as shit am not going to downplay the importance of the Kavanaugh episode: it shows Demorats' true colors when the chips of justice, truth, honesty, honor, consistency, etc. are down; and their selective willingness to believe the unbelievable speaks volumes. [Edit: Just the other day it was relayed to me that an acquaintance had referred to Kavanaugh as a "sex fiend" or words to that effect. Inasmuch as such zero-evidence notions are planted in the heads of people around the country, the 'rats have achieved much of their goal there.]] They don't reject Harris for her prominent role in that smear-job; if anything, they embrace her in that regard. How else did she manage to emerge as the front-runner in the wake of that vile spectacle?
I mean, gee, when you boil it down, philosopher-like, to the essential point, it is this:
She saw how well smearing Kavanaugh worked for her among Demorats; how else might she have gotten the impression that using smear tactics against Biden might also work for her?
PHILOSOPHER'S QUESTION: If that there question doesn't stimulate you to wonder just how much of an intellectual and moral cesspool today's Demorat Party (& allies/enablers) is, then what would?
[Edit: One of the Demorats' two articles of impeachment is about "obstruction of Congress." Let me put it in the simplest possible terms: Why would anyone in their right mind trust these Demorats to be fair and honest with any evidence provided to them? Why cooperate with proven scum like Adam Schiff unless one is compelled by a court to do so? [Edit: Speaking of Scumbag Schiff, he asserts - willfully disregarding the Mueller no-collusion findings - that Trump would cheat again as Schiff still claims Trump did in 2016. Fellow Demorats, by their complicit silence, appear just fine with such obvious dishonesty. Trump is supposed to willingly cooperate with this POS, and the complicit fellow scumbags, why?]]
