The disaster we narrowly avoided was having such an incompetent elected President of the United States. The Atlantic posted a new excerpt from former Vice President Kamala Harris’s book, “107 Days,” and like so many other emissions from what Kamala calls “her mind,” the selection prompts the thought, “Wow, what an idiot!”
Kamala Harris writes that her “first choice” to be her running mate was her close friend Pete Buttigieg, but she decided that it would be “too big of a risk” for a black woman to run with a gay man. Buttigieg “would have been an ideal partner—if I were a straight white man,” Harris writes. “But we were already asking a lot of America: to accept a woman, a Black woman, a Black woman married to a Jewish man. Part of me wanted to say, “Screw it, let’s just do it.”But knowing what was at stake, it was too big of a risk.” She adds that Buttigieg originally topped her list because “he is a sincere public servant with the rare talent of being able to frame liberal arguments in a way that makes it possible for conservatives to hear them…I love Pete. I love working with Pete. He and his husband, Chasten, are friends.”
Well.
1. Appropriate for a candidate whose only genuine credentials for her office and the one she aspired to were her group identities, the only thing that appears to matter to Harris is group identification. Did it ever occur to her that voters choose Presidents not because of their gender, color or what religion their spouse is, but based on whether they appear to be able to do the damn job? Apparently not. After all, the VP candidate she did choose was a bumbling fool, but he did, she thought, appeal to—wait, what was it the Knucklehead was supposed to bring to the ticket?
2. Note that nothing she says about Pete’s qualifications has anything to do with substance. That makes sense, because Buttigieg was a lazy, incompetent Secretary of Transportation, perhaps the worst ever. He was no star as a mayor either. The only reason Pete was selected for Biden’s Cabinet was that he was gay, and this was a administration that valued DEI over experience, demonstrated competence, ability, all that old fashioned stuff.
3. Harris—how girly of her!—also thinks that VPs should be good friends of the President—their spouses too!–and that a POTUS should “love” her VP. In fact, not that Kamala would know this, but most Presidents have barely known their running mates, much less think of them as pals.
4. Does Kamala know that the objective is to choose someone actually capable of being President? True, Biden’s example wouldn’t have helped her get that, since he chose her. Still, viewing the primary quality necessary for national leadership as “being able to frame liberal arguments in a way that makes it possible for conservatives to hear them” seems a bit naive.
5. And Kamala is telling the world that the only reason she didn’t select as her running mate the individual she thought, however foolishly, was the best one for the job was because of his sexual orientation. This called “discrimination,” I believe.
Wow. What an idiot.
Ethics Alarms 
Sometimes the jokes just write themselves, Jack. And VP Harris commits the discrimination to the eternity of the printed and published word. She admits this, while simultaneously blaming the country for her decision…she’s the victim. Who edited the book’s text for content, the Three Stooges?
And what’s truly horrifying? She’s certainly not top of the heap in her party, but she might be top 5…
This is anecdotal evidence at best as it’s secondhand, but, on my recent trip to Georgia, we stopped in Plains to see the gravesite of Jimmy Carter (it’s a Golden family thing). While there, we found a fascinating shop that sells campaign buttons. They have a huge assortment from both sides of the political spectrum from over 100 years of campaigns. The proprietor told us that the number of buttons sold in his store have predicted the winner of the Presidential race every time.
He’s seen a number of famous people in the store. Willie Nelson remembered his name. John Lewis looked for Shirley Chisholm buttons. Rosalynn Carter would bring in things for him to sell.
He’s only had two “nasty” celebrities visit. One was newswoman Lesley Stahl who would throw any button on the floor if she didn’t like who was featured on it. The second was Pete Buttigieg.
Plains people were apparently very excited to meet Buttigieg. Unfortunately, he was a big disappointment. Rude and dismissive to all. The proprietor thought he might have been having a bad day. But Buttigieg showed up again on another occasion and was the same way.
Ironic given Harris would likely best describe Pete as being “adorable.”*
_________
*The most over-used, smarmy adjective that drives me up the wall.
I think it’s a requirement for the club that all democrat women must refer to gay guys as “adorable”. They may be allowed an exception if referencing gay Republican guys.
Why should we be surprised at her comments. We are constantly being told minority kids need teachers who look like them for them to learn. I never understood this because as a white kid how was I supposed to learn from a teacher who did not share my racial characteristics. The logic has always escaped me – even as a kid.
With that said, group identification is normal on all sides. We all do it. we like to associate with “people like us”. Most of the time it involves shared interests or values but it can include the color of one’s skin. It is why so many choose to go to HBCU’s or live in ethnic communities like Dearborn. It takes a special other to gain break through acceptance. Associations based on immutable characteristics does not make one a bigot it is normal because it the majority of people like the safety and comfort of being part of a common group. Unfortunately when the feel the need to isolate yourself into groups at the expense of the national group identity things begin to fall apart. I once heard a phrase that is appropriate – united we stand, divided we fall. My fear is that the only way to get back to national unity is by virtue of a threat to all the differentiated group’s existence.
Kamala, Buttigieg, or even Walz never came close to gain majority acceptance because they have no history of real accomplishment they could speak of and in Walz’s case the lie about his military service probably affected some as to his trustworthiness. I had never heard of Tim Walz until he was selected as her running mate. Thus, their differences were insufficient to overcome the “not like us” perception. In fact, the not like us factor hurt them. Most of the not like us was predicted on their perceived lack of accomplishment but some of it was a result of being part of different groups. Kamala fails to recognize that holding an office for a period of time does not mean you were effective in that role. This will be Newsome’s issue going into 2028. Newsome cannot even add any marginal value of bringing California’s electoral votes to a Democrat candidate because they get them anyway.
In Kamala’s typical inarticulate way she chose a straight white guy to attract white voters who would not vote for a gay dude. That is her thinking; not unlike why getting a VP running mate from a crucial swing state is often used as one of the criteria. Trump selected Pence to attract the evangelicals yet Pence was hardly man of inner strength and conviction beyond his Christian bona fides.
I remain amazed she got a book deal. It’s the equivalent of giving the captain of the Titanic a book deal.
I’m going to read the Cliff’s Notes…or just grab a copy of “The Berenstein Bears”.
That’s funny OB
Is it discrimination(the illegal kind) to not choose Buttigedge(spelling? don’t vote for people who’s names are too difficult to spell and auto correct doesn’t handle) for being gay on the pretext that the country is not ready for that?
1. Appropriate for a candidate whose only genuine credentials for her office and the one she aspired to were her group identities, the only thing that appears to matter to Harris is group identification. Did it ever occur to her that voters choose Presidents not because of their gender, color or what religion their spouse is, but based on whether they appear to be able to do the damn job? Apparently not. After all, the VP candidate she did choose was a bumbling fool, but he did, she thought, appeal to—wait, what was it the Knucklehead was supposed to bring to the ticket?
I think this is too rough:
1 – Most people would vote for a blow-up doll if the doll was running as the candidate for their party.
2 – Once you get past the people who are pure party tribalists, you have low information voters who think they’re voting on the issues, but are easily and completely swayed by media.
3 – Once you get past the low information voters, you have a population of people who can actually articulate and vote on the issues.
4 – Then you have single-issue voters: Not to say that all single issue voters are equal, but because politics is always more complicated than a single issue these people tend to be caricatures. Genuine racists and Sexists exist in this group who will vote with their melanin or their genitals, either for or against something.
And while relatively marginal, I that population exists. There are going to be people out there that refuse to vote for a woman, there will be people out there that refuse to vote for a jew, there are people out there who will refuse to vote for a gay man. And in a close race, those people might make up the difference, and so all other things being equal, taking alienating demographics into account is probably legitimate.
In this case: Granted: It wasn’t close, but Black Americans have some very 80’s ideas about gay men, and Democrats didn’t want to discourage the black vote. I don’t think the thought exercise was illegitimate.
“Black Americans have some very 80’s ideas about gay men.”
What, in the name of Mike, does that even mean?
jvb
That black men in America are probably the most homophobic demographic in America, and it isn’t close. I don’t know how else to say this: hearing how black men talk to other black men about gay people reminds me of how people used to talk about gay people in the 80’s.
I actually have it in my head that part of the reason that progressives see homophobia as being as common as they say it is is similar to why progressives were so convinced that workplace sexism was a disproportionate problem before #metoo: They’re accurately describing what they see around them, they just don’t get out much.
My late wife worked for a black think tank in DC (as its findraiser) and had exactly the same observation, HT.
Harris could have used a much better argument against Pete Buttigieg as VP pick. Normally a VP pick is a popular politician from a swing state. The VP needs to carry the swing state. The problem is that both Jack Vance and Pete Buttigieg are from Ohio. Jack Vance is a popular senator; Pete Buttigieg was a less popular major.
Kamala Harris would have been much better off choosing Newsom as VP than Tim Walz. I think Newsom turned her down because he wants to run for President without the taint of a Kamal Harris administration.
The pick of Tim Walz, plus the arguments she is using against Pete Buttigieg as VP, illustrate that that Kamala Harris lacks the visionary and strategic skills required for the Presidency. She is simply not good at reaching sound decisions.
“The problem is that both Jack Vance and Pete Buttigieg are from Ohio.”
Not to quibble, but Buttigieg’s a Hoosier.
PWS
Both candidates on a ticket cannot be from the same state.
I’ve heard that a good portion of Harris’ book is better than expected.
That’s surely because she didn’t write it.
That’s likely true, but you didn’t check the link, did you? 😉
I didn’t until now. Now I know what you meant!