Did Man of Dementia Use His Running Mate?

 It's been over a year since Man of Dementia was inaugurated.  Even the most charitable of observers would describe the first year of the Biden-Harris -- or is it Harris-Biden -- Administration as a dumpster fire, or a train wreck, or a dumpster fire involved in a train wreck.  

No matter where one looked -- the economy, immigration, energy, Afghanistan, voting rights, Covid, SCOTUS litigation, the press -- Man of Dementia not only underperformed his critics' expectations, he failed to live up to his supporters' hopes.

Each facet of this new administration is horrible.  Man of Dementia seems to be cognitively impaired, mostly due to his age, but his running mate, Vice President Kamala Harris, seems cognitively impaired due to her innate incompetence.  Her insanely stupid laugh, trotted out at interview after interview, has been likened to the Joker's laugh on the old Batman series (somewhere, Cesar Romero is spinning in his grave).  Her vapid, scripted answers that awkwardly try to sidestep answering questions make a mockery of attempts to get answers.  Her inability to be honest is glaringly obvious to the electorate and, increasingly, to the fawning press.

Yet, if she's so bad, why did Man of Dementia bring her on his ticket?

I have a theory.

For all his warts, Man of Dementia is a longtime politician, savvy in the ways of using the process to his advantage.  He may be horrible as a leader, but as a sniveling powerbroker who knows how to turn things to his advantage, he may be among the most adept.

Many remember how the harridan of Blair House went after Man of Dementia in the debates, alleging, not without reason, that his record was tainted with evidence of racism.  It was an ugly attack, but one that is common in modern-day politics.  

Apparently, Jill Biden lost her mind after this exchange in the debates.  The story can be found here:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9595697/Jill-Biden-told-supporters-Kamala-f-attacking-Joe-2019-debate.html

Jill Biden told supporters that Kamala Harris could 'go f**k' herself after the June 2019 Democratic primary debate where the then-candidate attacked Joe Biden for supporting racist policies during his Senate career.

If that's the case, why would her husband put Harris on the ticket?

Race and gender.

The present-day Democratic Party is all about identity politics.  Race and gender are the two measuring sticks the Left uses to rate anything.  And by selecting Harris, Man of Dementia appealed to voters who thought he was progressive, hip, modern.  It allowed them to overlook his many shortcomings; he'd nominated the first female and minority Vice Presidential candidate.

For Harris, it's an obvious benefit to her political career.  For the first time, she attained a position not because she slept with someone powerful or was boosted by her looks.  This put her a heartbeat away from the presidency and history.

But then Man of Dementia played his ace in the hole.  He appointed Harris the border czar, a thankless task in light of the many pronouncements he had made that were essentially invitations to the world to violate our sovereignty.  This put Harris in the unenviable position of having to defend her boss when there was no way to stem the tide of illegal immigration.

Other than one trip to Guatemala to study the root causes of immigration and propose new age remedies addressing gender equity, Harris made one trip to one of the more defended portions of the southern border after the press hounded her about it.  Since then, she's been largely silent about it.

Since then, she's been mostly out of the public eye, unable or unwilling to do anything substantive.

Then, the situation between Ukraine and Russia broke out.  We have no strategic interests in Ukraine.  Ukraine is not part of NATO.  Yet Man of Dementia sent Harris to talk with our German and other NATO allies about intervening in Ukraine should the Russians attack.  There would be very little anyone could do to stop Russia were it decided on taking Ukrainian territory.

So in a year, Man of Dementia has sent Harris on two fool's errands, jobs that no one this side of Henry Kissinger could solve.  To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen, Harris is no Kissinger.

The net effect of these assignments has been to create a track record that almost guarantees that Harris has reached the height of her incompetence a la the Peter Principle.  Compared to her, Hilary Clinton is a politician for the ages.  Harris will never sit in the Oval Office.  Her political hopes were dashed the minute she accepted Man of Dementia's offer to be his running mate.  Were she more politically aware, she would have turned down his offer and waited until 2024.  But her vanity and professional greed got the best of her.  Jill Biden, she of the woefully laughable doctoral dissertation, had outplayed her.

There is one problem for the country and one hope for Harris, and that is Man of Dementia's declining cognitive abilities.  Should the 25th Amendment be invoked and he is removed, Harris ascends to the presidency.  And if that happens, we're all in a lot of trouble.

(c) 2022 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Rushing to Judgment

 For myriad reasons, this country rushes to judgment about virtually everything.  Oftentimes, the rush causes misjudgments left and right that should be corrected later but rarely are.  The collateral damage can be enormous.

Just in the last twenty years, this country has seen countless lessons of the ills of rushing to judgment.  Some of the more notable examples are the Duke lacrosse scandal, the University of Virginia frat story published by Rolling Stone, the Nicholas Sandman debacle and the Kyle Rittenhouse trial.  In each instance, the truth as asserted by public news organs turned out not to be the truth but the hopeful narrative pushed by news organizations hoping to cash in on sensational plots.

Perhaps the top reason for this is the rush to be first with a story.  In the United States, claiming to be the first with a story -- and not necessarily the most accurate -- matters a lot to the press.  Were it only the press's fascination with being first with the news, that would be one thing, but a more than gullible public wanting its fears or hopes confirmed is what galvanizes the press to eschew its journalistic responsibilities in order to claim the mantel of being first with a story.

No matter how wrong a story turns out to be, the rush to be first never causes the perpetrator too much backlash. Professor Jonathan Turley has dubbed this the Age of Rage, and no matter how incorrect a news organization turns out to be, as long as the story sounded plausible when first aired, no amount of correction can diminish the victory of having broken the alleged story.  In each of the cases cited above, the story turned out to be almost directly opposite of what the press implied was the truth. People's lives and reputations were damaged.  As far as I'm aware, as of this writing, only Mr. Sandman has found any vindication whatsoever, but because of the press's perfidy, no amount of monetary vindication will erase the stain of having been branded a racist.  Mr. Rittenhouse will, hopefully, soon add to the MSM's debit column in the next couple of years, but with the enormous sums of advertising revenue the MSM takes in, it will but bat an eye, write a check and exchange it for an NDA.

And that's where the rubber should meet the road.  Obviously, given the ordeal endured by Mr. Rittenhouse, he may be loathe to go through another such exercise, but if I were him, after I'd settled with one or two of the lesser miscreants, I'd go to the mat with one of the other, bigger ones.  No amount of money would compel me to settle.  The reason is quite simple:  He can't lose.  There is no way that going through a trial and exposing the craven partisanship of an entity that all but had him tried, convicted and executed for exercising his right of self-defense, he'd be viewed as anything other than a champion by right-minded people  Sure, he may forfeit a hefty payday, but think of what it would be like to expose, say, the bias of CNN by putting them on the witness stand and having them answer questions under oath:

What was racial about this trial, Mr. Stelter?

How did Mr. Rittenhouse commit murder, Mr. Lemon?

Please explain how Mr. Rittenhouse wasn't in fear of his life after having a gun pointed at his head, Mr. Cuomo.

Admittedly, I don't stand to forfeit a $50M payday, but think about all the goodwill Mr. Rittenhouse would earn for exposing the putrid underbelly of the MSM.  Sure, the MSM wouldn't have to write a check, but after undergoing a trial, even assuming it won, how many advertisers would jump ship?  How many would continue to support a propaganda machine masquerading as news organization?  

It's hard to choose which Leftist to use as an example; there are so many from which to choose.  Does he choose the deep pockets, the most vitriolic, the one who stands the most to lose after being exposed?  Professor Turley has written that winning a defamation trial for Mr. Rittenhouse isn't the slam dunk many think it would be, given SCOTUS precedent in New York Times v. Sullivan.  That being the case, why not take the suit to trial?  

It's gotten to the point that for a news organization to be able to claim an exclusive on a news story is tantamount to sell world famous pizza in Newberry, Michigan.  But the audience, lacking either the sophistication or the wattage to discern the unimportance of the claim, eats it up.  To be honest, having an exclusive is no more authoritative in this age than having a broadcasting license.  The lowliest blogger can scoop the major networks if she plays her cards right.

But rushing to judgment gives the newsies one thing:  The rush.  It gives them the chills to be able to say that they were the first to report something, no matter how inaccurate, because the claim of exclusivity will soon be overtaken by events.  For perhaps a twenty-four hour period, the organ that breaks the story is in first place, until everyone catches up, events overtake the original story and corrections begin.  

Meanwhile, the poor focus of the story wallows in the mess created by the rush to judgment, never being able to unring that bell.  There are still, for example, people that believe Mr. Rittenhouse killed black people, that he shouldn't be allowed to attend college and that if he were black he certainly would have been found guilty.  Ironically, these same people are blissfully ignorant of the case in Florida of Andrew Coffee, a black man, who was acquitted the same day as Mr. Rittenhouse of murder and attempted murder when a SWAT team raided his house.

It is possible the Mr. Rittenhouse could sue Man of Dementia for statements he made during his campaign for president wherein he intimated Mr. Rittenhouse was a white supremacist.

Unfortunately for Mr. Rittenhouse, the Man of Dementia has an obvious defense:  diminished capacity.

Think of all the millions Mr. Rittenhouse could take from him that China and Ukraine paid him.

(c) 2022 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles