Tangled web
It's no picnic keeping straight the ostensible reasons for denying Kamala Harris a shot at the top position in the White House. Sure, there's the obvious problem that she's an unpleasant fool. But then how to explain how she ended up as VP in the first place? No one wants to admit explicitly that she has literally zero redeeming qualities beyond checking intersection boxes, still less that her appeal (like that of her boss before her, to a lesser extent) was the in terrorem effect of imagining the impact of the sitting president's exit. And yet that seems to be the exact corner they're backed into.
OK, say Harris is great but doesn't appeal to the foolish masses, though party leaders assert their sophisticated ability to appreciate her privately. So how come no one thinks it would be a good idea to put her on a new ticket under Newson or Whitmer as VP? She's so unelectable that she'd drag down the newly anointed candidate for the top position?
Knock her leadership experience? True, she was an undistinguished senator, but she has been VP for four years. The problem there is that she has been sidelined as VP even more, perhaps, than the usual hapless possessor of that office. "Groomed for the top seat" she is not, even in the context of a top spot that for several years has been filled by various unelected flacks, in short anyone or everyone but the technical holder to that position. But calling attention to Harris's hollow title doesn't do much to pander to the black or female vote, or the lack of seriousness of an administration or a party who couldn't face up to the real danger that an unusually elderly president might not make it even through his first term.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
"They" were and are happy to keep Joe around because he's easy to control from many directions. If it was just a matter of ejecting him it would have been done by now. Harris is likely the real focus of most discussion.
In their imagined withdrawal speech that the Washington Post Editorial Board took the liberty of writing for Biden and publishing yesterday, they imagine her assenting to be one of many participants in an open convention.
"The Democratic National Committee, senior Democratic leaders and I have agreed on an orderly process to select our next nominee, which will include debates between now and our convention in August. My vice president, Kamala Harris, has graciously and courageously agreed to participate. Though Democratic primary voters cannot be included at this late date, their delegates will make the final choice."
Indeed that would be both gracious and courageous of her. I have not gotten the impression, though, that she is inclined to either of those qualities. I suspect Christopher is right, and that the real fears are that (a) she wouldn't help them win, but would just be another way of drowning, and (b) even if she did, somehow, she wouldn't be controllable like Biden has been. She wouldn't owe anyone anything, and ceding power to someone like that is just as scary as Trump -- scarier, perhaps, since Trump would be a lame duck as soon as elected.
They can nominate whoever they like, for whatever reason.
The question is this: will the Big Money back their play?
Big Money can wait four years. It's Big.
I have two thoughts to add to Dad29's comment.
Big Money knows from 2017-2021 which Republicans will go along with their plans. It also knows it likely can stymie Trump and then fortify the 2028 election when he isn't running.
Maybe. Then again, what Big Money knows can easily turn out to be wrong. Those who are financing the Democrats aren't exactly a monolith and they aren't exactly 3D chess players either or this situation wouldn't come up in the first place.
I'd argue that they're essentially in a civil war between their Far Left faction and their *really* Far Left faction and even that is just a background for the Liberal Game Of Thrones that will be set into motion if Mr. Biden is persuaded to step down. Keeping Mrs. Harris might avert that, but if they don't then the long knives will come out and the Democrats will likely have a catfight they can't afford at the worst possible time. 🙂
Yes, I believe Towering Barbarian is correct. No good leftist would let a crisis go to waste, as they say, and this may be a crisis, but to them that also means it's an opportunity. They may actually *like* Trump getting elected because they're sure it will help them as it helped an almost unelectable candidate in Biden get elected (with some help, yes). They'd probably think it's worth four years of Trump, despite their fearmongering about him. I think the far, far left is drooling at the potential power play they can pull here.
I should expand on that a little bit. I think they'll see a second Trump term as potentially empowering of the far, far left, and the swing 'right' to Trump then back to the left will inevitably, as it has in the last four decades at least, continue to ratchet society leftward. Why would they see that as a loss? I don't think they will.
Post a Comment