A cabal of senior Democratic Party elites and campaign contributors, led by former President Barack Obama, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, have executed a bloodless coup unparalleled in American history by forcing President Joe Biden to withdraw his candidacy for re-election, despite having won the right to the Democrat nomination by sweeping the primary elections and locking up a majority of Democrat convention delegates.
The party leaders were driven by fear of a disastrous electoral defeat in November at the hands of the Republicans, led by Donald Trump, in the wake of Biden’s disastrous June 27 debate performance which revealed him to be cognitively unfit to run for a second term. Then, without permitting the 14 million Democrat party members who voted overwhelmingly for Biden during the primaries a voice in choosing his successor, the elites put in his place Vice President Kamala Harris, even though opinion polls before the debate had shown her to have an even lower job approval rating from the voters than Biden had.
Harris was known as the most left-wing member of the U.S. Senate surpassing even the self-avowed socialist, Senator Bernie Sanders. Harris’ candidacy for the 2020 Democrat presidential nomination imploded, forcing her to drop long before the first primary. Her future political ambitions seemed to be all but dead before Biden chose her to be his vice president, based solely on her race and gender, in order to satisfy the identity-obsessed progressive wing of the party.
Harris was initially so incompetent as vice president that she was unable to perform the largely ceremonial duties of her office without embarrassing the Biden administration. She became an object of widespread ridicule on social media, based upon video clips of her incoherent, unintentionally funny “word-salad” speeches and interviews, and for breaking out into giggles or an irritating cackling laugh at the most inopportune moments.
The only issue upon which Harris as vice president was eventually able to speak out effectively for the Biden administration was to criticize Trump for the appointment of three of the conservative justices who overruled the Roe v. Wade decision in 2022, and on other liberal “women’s rights” issues.
In fact, the elites’ fears of Harris’ miserable record and many political liabilities enabled Biden to hold out for three weeks after Biden’s debate collapse against the panicked calls by Democrat candidates demanding that he step aside.
BIDEN REPORTEDLY THREATENED WITH REMOVAL BY THE 25TH AMENDMENT
It was only then, in the face of polls predicting a Republican landslide victory in November, including the White House, Senate and House of Representatives, that the party’s elites reportedly stepped in to present Biden with an ultimatum: give up the nomination or be removed as president immediately to be replaced by Harris by invoking the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh said that an unnamed senior Washington official told him that with the approval of Pelosi and Schumer, “Obama called Biden after breakfast [on July 20] and said, ‘Here’s the deal. We have Kamala’s approval to invoke the 25th Amendment.’”
“It was clear at this point,’ the official said,” according to Hersch, “that she [Harris] would get the nod’ — that is, the support to run for the presidency in the November election.” The next day, Biden announced in a letter on social media that he was pulling out of the race, followed shortly thereafter by another post endorsing Harris as his replacement at the top of the Democrat ticket.
Hersh’s reputation as a top reporter dates back to his exposure of the 1969 My Lai massacre in South Vietnam by American troops, for which he won the Pulitzer Prize, His more recent stories, such as his report last year that the U.S. and Norway collaborated to sabotage Russia’s Nord Stream natural gas pipeline feeding Germany, are often based upon unnamed sources, and are therefore considered to be more controversial. That is why his current report, claiming that Biden withdrew as a candidate after being threatened with the 25th Amendment, has not been widely picked up by the mainstream media.
DEMOCRATS TRYING TO ERASE HARRIS’ RECORD
Obama and the other Democrat elites, in cooperation with their allies in the mainstream media, then embarked upon a desperate campaign to make Harris, who had the worst job approval ratings than any vice president in history, more acceptable to the electorate by boldly erasing her ultra-liberal record and falsely portraying her as a center-left moderate.
Harris became the consensus choice of the Democrat elites to substitute for Biden, despite her shortcomings, because she is a known political quantity who has already been officially vetted for high office. In addition, because as the daughter of an Indian mother and Jamaican father Harris checks so many of the Democrats’ political identity boxes, trying to deny her the nomination would have risked a bitter intraparty war at the party’s national convention in Chicago later this month over race and gender.
But according to Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley Strassel, convincing voters to accept Harris as a newly minted moderate Democrat candidate over the next 100 days before the election will likely prove to be a hard sell.
She notes that, before Biden’s debate meltdown, Harris “polled nearly as badly as Biden in most head-to-head matchups with Trump nationally and in battleground states. . . [reflecting the] deep voter frustration with inflation, border chaos, crime, and global unrest — all of which Biden owns fully, and Harris by extension. Republicans will beat on her failings as ‘border czar’ and paint her, as the elected official closest to the president, as the ringleader in Democratic efforts to cover up Biden’s physical and mental failings.”
HARRIS CAN’T ESCAPE HER IDENTITY AS A SAN FRANCISCO LIBERAL
Strassel adds that while “Biden might have won the election posing as a moderate, Harris has never pretended to be anything but a San Francisco liberal. Her Senate career and 2020 primary bid featured commitments to Medicare for All, the Green New Deal (calling for the elimination of gasoline-powered cars, gas stoves, and air conditioning), open borders, repeal of the Trump tax cuts. . . an ‘end to mass incarceration,’ killing the [Senate] filibuster, gun bans [in defiance of the Second Amendment], student-loan debt forgiveness, price controls for drugs, and union payoffs.”
She was so unpopular that before Biden’s fateful debate with Trump, which ultimately destroyed his candidacy, Democrat strategists were seriously debating whether it was too late to replace her with someone else to serve as Biden’s 2024 running mate.
The monumental current effort by the liberal-dominated media to re-write Harris’ political history has given her an opportunity to distance herself from some of Biden’s more unpopular policies with white, older, and working-class voters who will be crucial in determining the winner in the key Midwest battleground states.
The substitution of Harris for Biden eliminated the gains that Trump had made since the June 27 debate, returning the polls predicting the popular vote and some of the battleground states to a near toss-up. But according to Strassel, instead of tacking towards the political middle to attract still undecided voters, Harris’ first presidential campaign event “suggested she’d instead double down on [Roe v. Wade], voting rights, and other liberal pitches to youth, women and minorities, ignoring Midwest states and focusing [instead] on Arizona, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Georgia” where Trump still holds significant lead.
HOW A SHORT CAMPAIGN BENEFITS HARRIS
Nevertheless, the abbreviated presidential campaign can work to Harris’ advantage. Despite her limitations as a presidential candidate, all Harris’ Democrat handlers have to do is repeat the strategy that worked for Biden during his 2020 campaign against Trump. That means limiting Harris’ unscripted public appearances as much as possible and maintaining strict discipline over the next 100 days to avoid the verbal gaffes to which Harris has been prone in the past. That could enable Harris to transform the election from a referendum by the voters on the record of the Biden-Harris administration, which she would be likely to lose, to a choice between two leaders with very different political agendas and governing styles, Harris and Trump. In addition, Harris, at the age of 59, can now use the issue of age that Trump, at the age of 78, had been using until now so effectively against Biden.
Trump himself has also lamented the royal treatment that Harris has received since Biden was forced to give up his bid for re-election. “Three months ago, she was thought of so badly, [the media] were just killing her,” Trump said. “And now they’re trying to make her into a, let’s say, [former British Prime Minister] Margaret Thatcher. I don’t think so. It’s not going to happen. Margaret Thatcher didn’t laugh like that. Did she? If she did, she wouldn’t have been Margaret Thatcher,” he continued.
Trump also asked, half-seriously, “If I start beating her [Harris] in the polls by 10 or 15 points, are they gonna bring in a third candidate?
“You know the guy [Biden] had 14 million [primary] votes,” Trump went on. “So much for democracy.”
TRUMP DECLARES REPUBLICANS THE PARTY OF COMMON SENSE
At a rally in Charlotte, North Carolina last week, Trump repeated a theme that he introduced the week before at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee by declaring, “We are the party of common sense. We have to get back to common sense.We’re going to have a thing called common sense making most of our decisions, actually.”
Some Republican strategists have suggested that if Trump had known before the GOP convention that his opponent in November would be Harris instead of Biden, he would not have chosen Ohio freshman Senator J.D. Vance as his GOP running mate. Vance’s outspoken conservative beliefs about the importance of the family and raising children have reportedly alienated single women voters who are naturally receptive to Harris’ candidacy. But on the other hand, Trump’s choice of Vance demonstrates his commitment to expanding the Republican voter base among working-class voters, and because of Vance’s proven ability to serve as a powerful advocate for Trump’s political ideals on the campaign trail and in front of hostile audiences.
THE FIRST CLEAR CONSERVATIVE VS. LIBERAL CHOICE IN 40 YEARS
According to conservative commentator Hugh Hewitt, the looming matchup between Harris, running under her true political colors as “a San Francisco liberal Democrat,” against Trump who has turned himself into the populist spokesman and leader for a revitalized grassroots Republican conservative movement, has thereby set up the first pure test of political strength between the American right and the American left since former Vice President Walter Mondale challenged President Ronald Reagan in 1984.
According to Hewitt, that classic conflict was defined at the Republican National Convention by the memorable speech delivered by Reagan’s U.N. Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick, who reminded the audience that she was herself a Democrat as President Reagan had once been when Democrats were still guided by the traditional American principles that President Harry Truman had clearly defined four decades earlier.
She quoted Truman as saying that the “elements of our strength are many. They include our democratic government, our economic system, and our great natural resources. But, the basic source of our strength is spiritual. We believe in the dignity of man.”
Kirkpatrick noted that in Truman’s day, Democrats “didn’t imagine that America should depend for its very survival on the promises of its adversaries.” But during the 1980s, America was bitterly divided over how to confront the nuclear challenge from the Soviet Union.
ANOTHER CHOICE BETWEEN APPEASEMENT AND STRENGTH
President Reagan had won the presidency in 1980 on a platform of “Peace Through Strength” and for the next four years confronted a Democrat Party that had been taken by leftist activists who demanded a “nuclear freeze,” while Reagan, determined to defeat communism, began a massive defense build-up that would, a few years later, cause the economic collapse of the Soviet Union and its East European empire, and enable the United States and its NATO allies to win the Cold War without firing a shot.
The nuclear freeze movement was an outgrowth of the radical leftist 1960s-era anti-Vietnam War movement, which was based on the fundamentally flawed belief that lasting peace could be achieved by the appeasement of America’s communist enemies.
Kirkpatrick added in her 1984 speech, that while Truman-era Democrats “happily assumed the responsibilities of freedom, I am not alone in noticing that the San Francisco [liberal] Democrats [of that era] took a very different approach.”
According to Hewett, today’s San Francisco Democrats led by Nancy Pelosi and Kamala Harris are just as dedicated to the same failed policy of appeasing America’s present-day enemies, including Russia, Iran, and China, as the Democrats that Kirkpatrick opposed in 1984.
Hewett argues that “What Kamala Harris says over the next three months [in campaigning for president] as she rhetorically tries to tack to the middle does not much matter. She and her party are from and for the American Left’s vision for the United States.
“We have rarely seen that agenda on full display. It’s been 40 years in fact since the mask was last off the Democrats in a presidential election.
“Democrats are going to put a choice before the American people: A mangled ‘managed decline’ of the U.S. overseen by Vice President Kamala Harris or a renewal of American strength under President Donald Trump,” Hewett concludes.
harris can read
a good speech
Former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan wrote in her Wall Street Journal column that she has been wrong in thinking that Kamala Harris was too incompetent a politician to defeat Donald Trump. She argues that Harris’ performance since Biden’s disastrous June 27 debate Harris has shown a political competence and talent that she had never displayed before.
According to Noonan, Harris’ “past and famous verbal embarrassments, which shaped her public reputation, almost all took place in interviews and ad-libbed arias. They obscured a real proficiency.
“She knows how to act a speech. When she is scripted, she is good. That isn’t all put-down. She knows what a good speech is. She can judge it, and recognize good material. Not all candidates can. Most can’t. It is its own talent.”
Noonan also observes that Harris’ “party is newly alive and loaded for bear. This is what top Trump staffers feared. They didn’t fear Joe Biden. What they feared was the Democratic Party machine, a vast network of groups and money lines that knows how to get out their base and a would-be base. A deteriorated Joe Biden couldn’t fully capitalize on this. A dispirited party wouldn’t fully produce it.
“But a new and revived candidate who woke everybody up? That would be a danger.”
Noonan predicts that “in the end, [the election] will come down to issues and positions. [To win, Harris] should scramble toward the center and try to hold it every day. [But] it isn’t at all clear that is her intention.”
And in a final note, Noonan predicts that everything in this election campaign “is about to get meaner, more vicious and primal.”
GINGRICH WARNS AGAINST GOP COMPLACENCY
Former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who is a former college professor of history, told Fox News that the “pure political muscle [demonstrated by] former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her disciples [which] forced President Biden into withdrawing from the presidential race was an amazing performance and has no previous example in American history.”
According to Gingrich, “Biden was clearly coerced into withdrawing as a presidential candidate [and] had no realistic alternative [because] Pelosi was going to unveil a wave of additional House and Senate members calling on him to withdraw.”
Gingrich also said that “Vice President Kamala Harris can legitimately be described as the party bosses’ candidate. She has never won a delegate. Even in her 2020 race, she dropped out early. She has no grassroots appeal. She’s attractive only to the elites, who feel she is useful in defeating Trump. . .
Gingrich also noted that ideologically, “Vice President Harris is well to the left of President Biden.
“When she was in the Senate, she voted to the left of Senator Bernie Sanders.
“On illegal immigration, Harris is much more radical than Biden.
“She has been an enthusiastic cheerleader for every major Biden policy which increased the deficit and inflation.
“On taxes, Harris favors a corporate rate higher than Venezuela.”
However, Gingrich warned his fellow Republicans against complacency and predicted that “Harris will turn out to be a much better candidate than Republicans think. As District Attorney and Attorney General of California, she was an effective litigator. In the Senate, she was an aggressive interrogator, especially with U.S. Supreme Court nominees [such as Justice Brett Kavanaugh, against whom she made a vile accusation during his confirmation hearing].”
TRUMP AND HARRIS BUSY SWITCHING TARGETS AND STRATEGY
Since dumping Biden in favor of Harris as their new electoral standard-bearer, the Democrats have been riding on a wave of emotional relief and renewed enthusiasm. Meanwhile, Trump and J.D. Vance have watched most of their post-debate polling lead evaporate, as they attempt to switch the target of their campaign attack plans from Biden to Harris. The Republicans also need to guard against their recent complacency, fueled by Biden’s disastrous debate performance. Without Biden’s age factor working in their favor, this will be a much tougher race to win because, fundamentally, this country is still roughly split down the middle between Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals.
In a memo to Trump supporters last week, Trump’s pollster, Tony Fabrizio, predicted that Harris’ current “honeymoon” in the media and bump in the polls is unlikely to last beyond the Democrat convention in mid-August, at which point the campaign will enter the home stretch with both presidential candidates roughly even, at which point it will be up to the Trump campaign to reveal Harris to the voters as an out-of-touch San Francisco leftist dedicated to continuing Biden’s failed domestic, economic and foreign policies.
HOW WELL CAN TRUMP EXPLOIT HARRIS’ MANY WEAKNESSES?
The Trump ticket will have significant weaknesses to exploit in Harris’ liberal record, especially in the Rust Belt states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and among working and middle-class voters across the country. These include Harris’ support for the Green New Deal and a national fracking ban, and her public appeal for bail money for the violent perpetrators arrested for their roles in the 2020 Black Lives Matter riots.
Harris will also be vulnerable to attacks on the positions she took during her abbreviated run against Biden and others during the 2020 Democrat presidential primary campaign.
As David Harsany recalled in an article published in the Federalist, “When candidate Biden argued that Harris’ promise to issue an executive order unilaterally banning access to certain guns would be unconstitutional, she retorted: ‘I would just say: Hey, Joe, instead of saying “No we can’t,” let’s say “yes, we can,’” before cackling at the very notion that presidents couldn’t do whatever they wanted.
“As a candidate, Harris supported abolishing private health insurance — ‘Let’s eliminate all of that. Let’s move on,’ she told CNN.
“Harris was in favor of getting rid of the filibuster to overturn state voting laws. . . and passing the Green New Deal — an authoritarian takeover of the [entire American] economy.”
“As a national candidate,” Harsany added, “Kamala said she believed immigration laws should be treated as civil, rather than criminal, offenses. In addition to calling for the decriminalization of illegal entry into this country by migrants, candidate Harris also called for ‘starting from scratch’ [in other words, defunding] the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement [ICE] agency which is responsible for enforcing federal immigration laws. So, of course, Biden gave Kamala the job of border czar, [in which] she did not perform admirably, to say the least.”
In line with Biden’s policies, Harris made no effort to close the border to the flood of illegal immigrants and chose instead to blame the flow on the “lack of climate adaptation and climate resilience” in the poor countries of Central and South America from where, at least initially, most of the migrants originated.
DEMOCRATS DENYING HARRIS’ RECORD AS BIDEN’S “BORDER CZAR”
The Wall Street Journal’s internet reporter, James Freeman, noted with amusement the “creepily Orwellian or just plain hilarious efforts by mainstream media outlets to retroactively revise their reporting in 2021 when Biden appointed Harris as his ‘border czar,’ now that the title has become a political albatross around Harris’ neck.
These outlets now claim that Harris’ mandate from Biden was limited to addressing the “root causes” that motivate people in other countries to try to enter the U.S. illegally, rather than the security at the border itself.
But veteran reporter Salena Zito of the Washington Examiner reminds us of a White House meeting on March 24, 2021, that included Vice President Harris, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, and Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, at which Biden announced that Harris would lead the administration’s efforts “stemming the migration to our southern border.”
Zito also recalled that before that meeting, Biden had told reporters that he wanted Harris to be his administration’s point person on the border, and that, “When she speaks [on border issues], she speaks for me.” That led to a flurry of stories by dozens of news organizations that referred to Harris as Biden’s new “border czar,” which is a common term used by the media to describe similarly empowered government officials in Washington D.C. As Zito points out, these media outlets’ lame current attempts to deny that they had applied that term to Harris after Biden put her in charge of the border, despite the evidence they published at that time to the contrary, can only mean that “they were lying then or they are lying now,” and that either way, “they are engaged in disinformation that discredits their own reporting.”
RETROACTIVELY REVISING HARRIS’ LIBERAL SENATE RECORD
According to Zito, “The same goes for the ‘nonpartisan’ GovTrack, an organization that touts itself as a government transparency website that tracks congressional voting records, that in the dark of night [last week] decided to scrub its 2019 rating of Harris as the most liberal [member] of the U.S. Senate,” so as not to scare off moderate voters on Election Day.
In an editor’s note, GovTrack explained that five years later after the fact, it had decided to go back to check Harris’ record in the entirety of the Senate’s 2019-2020 session to find that she was not the most left-leaning senator, based only upon the legislation she introduced, [rather than her voting record].
USA Today reporter Ingrid Jacques cites as another example the 2021 report by the Axios news site which declared that “Biden puts Harris in charge of border crisis,” and another Axios story published during the same news cycle which referred to Harris as the administration’s new “border czar.” Fast forward to last week, when the same Axios news site published an editor’s note to a current story on Harris which self-righteously stated “This article has been updated and clarified to note that Axios was among the news outlets that incorrectly labeled Harris a ‘border czar’ in 2021.’”
The media began to rewrite Kamala Harris’ political history to help pave the way for her presidential candidacy after the June 27 Biden-Trump debate, when the protective bubble guarding the secret of Biden’s age-related cognitive decline burst in front of a national television audience. All of the Democrat party officials and media reporters who had been insisting for the past four years that Biden was mentally and physically fit to go on serving as president through a second term, finally admitted the truth about the faltering president, and began singing Harris’ praises as the only Democrat candidate capable of saving American democracy from the imagined threat of a second Trump term as president.
THE LONG LIST OF LIBERAL HARRIS PROPOSALS
By attempting to refocus the attention of the media on Trump’s faults, the Harris campaign hoped that she would be able to escape close scrutiny by the voters of her own extremely liberal political record.
During her bid for the 2020 presidential nomination, Harris promised that, if elected, she would enact a total nationwide ban on oil and gas fracking, which would cost tens of thousands of American drilling-related jobs in states such as Texas, North Dakota and Pennsylvania. It would also make the United States and its European allies even more dependent upon fossil fuels imported from foreign enemies and rogue states, such as Russia, Iran, and Venezuela, while further depleting the nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserves and driving up the cost of gas at the pump and household energy costs for American consumers.
During her four years as a U.S. Senator from California, Harris sponsored other socialist-inspired proposals, including a $6,000 guaranteed income for families making up to $100,000; a refundable tax credit that would effectively cap rents and utility payments at 30% of income that would give landlords an incentive to drive up rents; and payment of the tuition at four-year public colleges for students from families making up to $125,000 that would cost the government $700 billion over a decade and encourage colleges to further increase their tuition.
Senator Harris also co-sponsored Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All legislation, paid for by higher income taxes that would amount to a total government takeover of the American healthcare system over time.
Harris also co-sponsored a bill introduced by fellow Democrat Senator Cory Booker that would “establish a commission to study the impact of slavery and continuing discrimination against African-Americans and make recommendations on reparation proposals for the descendants of slaves.”
While campaigning for president in 2019, Harris told National Public Radio concerning reparations “that we need to study the effects of generations of discrimination and institutional racism and determine what can be done, in terms of intervention, to correct course.” She also told black agitator Al Sharpton that if she’s elected president and presented with reparations legislation, “I will sign that bill.”
HARRIS ACCUSED OF ANTI-CATHOLIC PREJUDICE
Another potential liability for Harris is the reputation she has developed among America’s 72 million Catholics for harboring anti-Catholic prejudices. According to CatholicVote.org President Brian Burch, “Since the day she stepped into public life, Kamala Harris has epitomized gross incompetence, corruption, and shameless bigotry that have become the mark of hard-left politicians. She has specifically targeted people of faith and pro-life citizens for their beliefs and defense of the most defenseless in our society.”
As an example of that prejudice, Burch cited her interrogation of Trump federal judiciary nominee Brian Buescher during his Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing challenging his membership in the Knights of Columbus, a large men’s Catholic fraternal organization primarily known for its charitable work.
Harris asked Buescher if he knew that the Catholic group “opposed a woman’s right to choose,” in keeping with Catholic religious tenets, and if he had “ever, in any way, assisted with or contributed to advocacy against women’s reproductive rights.” Harris then asked Buescher if he would be willing to quit the Knights of Columbus if he were to be confirmed, implying that she was trying to create an anti-religious litmus test on federal judicial nominees in violation of the Constitutional right of religious freedom.
Burch has added that “Not only has Harris characterized Catholic Church teachings as ‘extreme’ and disqualifying for the federal judiciary, but she has also helped lead an administration that sought to weaponize the government against their political opponents.”
Ed Whelan, a Catholic expert at the Ethics and Public Policy Center has also told the Catholic News Agency that, with regard to the controversy over the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision, “Kamala Harris has no business using her government position to tell Americans how their faith should inform their views on legal protections for the unborn.”
TRUMP COURTS THE DEVOUT CHRISTIAN VOTE
Trump set off a new controversy over a remark he made last week while speaking to an audience of devout Christians in Florida. He urged them to get out the vote for him and his fellow Republicans this November so that as president he can permanently eliminate liberal Democrat threats to their religious rights.
“Get out and vote just this time. You won’t have to do it anymore.” Trump assured them. “Four more years it will be fixed. It’ll be fine. You won’t have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians.”
Trump then repeated, “You’ve got to get out and vote. In four years, you don’t have to vote again, we’ll have it fixed so good you’re not going to have to vote.”
Trump’s critics were quick to pounce on his claim that the Christians would not have to vote again in four years as a thinly veiled threat to end democratic elections for president.
But Republican Senator Tom Cotton dismissed the criticism by telling CNN that the former president was “obviously making a joke.” Republican Senator Lindsay Graham also rejected the notion that Trump was issuing a threat to democracy, and suggested during a CBS interview that Trump was “trying to tell the Christian community and anybody else who’s listening that the nightmare that we’re experiencing [under the Biden presidency] will soon be over, [if they] give me four more years [as president].”
Trump has also been highly critical of Kamala Harris’ carefully nuanced support for Biden’s policy of defending Israel’s right to defend itself against Hamas in light of its October 7 attack, while at the same time, she has sharply criticized Israel for the civilian casualties in Gaza, and called for a cease-fire that would seemingly end the war before Israel had achieved its objectives.
THIS ELECTION IS CLOSE, BUT STILL TRUMP’S TO LOSE
Despite Harris’ current surge in the polls, bringing her back to almost even with Trump, and the renewed Democrat optimism now that Biden has stepped aside, the Wall Street Journal editorial page believes, given the many vulnerabilities in Harris’ record, and her close association with Biden’s failed policies, that “the 2024 election is [still] Donald Trump’s to lose.”
