This has already been a weird election cycle, and no, I’m not talking about what JD Vance said about cat ladies. It’s the Democrats who are acting weird, even for them — and this despite maintaining a “Weekend at Bernie’s Presidency” for nearly four years, keeping befuddled venerable Joe Biden in power and insisting he was “razor sharp” and “on the ball” until they could no longer hide the fact that his desiccation has gone down the drain. So now they’ve anointed Joe’s life insurance, Kamala Harris, as the queen of word salad. And as RedState has informed you, she’s nominated Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as her running mate.
On Monday, I wrote an article evaluating Kamala Harris’s possible vice presidential candidates. In particular, I wrote about Minnesota Governor Tim Walz:
Governor Tim Walz: It won’t be Walz. He comes from a state dominated by Democrats and has the charisma of a lemon peel. He brings literally nothing to the campaign.
I stand by that statement – especially the part about the lemon peel. So why did Kamala Harris pick the pale, pasty-white, radical left-wing governor of Minnesota, a state that was going to go to the Democrats in the Electoral College anyway? And why did Eric “Fast and Furious” Holder, who was in charge of her candidate selection, recommend this guy?
He brings nothing to the table. He has no moderate skills to balance Kamala’s communist-progressive stance. Minnesota, as mentioned, was a victory in the Electoral College for the Democrats anyway, unless Trump somehow delivers a 1972 Landslide victory in 49 states in Nixon style – that was the last time Minnesota’s Electoral College votes went to a Republican. And then there’s the lemon peel thing.
The choice is a little confusing. The only choice that would have been worse would have been Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg, whose incompetence is legendary both as mayor of South Bend, Indiana, and in his current role.
“My fears about Harris are that she is incredibly bad at public speaking and that she routinely makes poor policy decisions. So far, she has done nothing to allay those fears. I’m not saying she can’t win, but I wish she would give me more confidence,” wrote Washington Post columnist Megan McArdle.
Professor and podcaster Damon Linker responded: “Instead of choosing the very popular governor of a neck-and-neck race in a must-win Democratic state, Harris chose a governor from an average Democratic state who leans toward progressives. That’s about what I would have expected from her a month ago.”
Author Matt Lewis said it was not a “bad choice for Kamala,” but said Walz would not appeal to anti-Trump conservatives.
“If you were a conservative who championed ‘Never Trump’ and hoped that would justify a vote for the Democrats (a short-term alliance), things just got harder,” Lewis wrote.
Walz, like Harris, is a radical leftist. He doesn’t bring a swing state. His record is riddled with blemishes. Here at RedState, we’ve listed all the reasons why this was a bad choice – unless you’re Donald Trump and JD Vance, in which case this is a superb choice, a superb choice. No doubt there will be some glasses (and cans of Diet Coke) being raised at Trump’s campaign headquarters this morning.
See also: “Most left-wing ticket”: Republicans react mercilessly to Kamala Harris’ nomination for Tim Walz
The press rushes to whitewash the pig, but the election of Tim Walz is a disaster for the Democrats
UPDATED: MN Governor Tim Walz accused by former colleagues of cowardice and whitewashing his military service record
Here are Tim Walz’s scathing comments that Republicans should keep on a loop
There is a possible explanation.
In 1996, the general belief was that Democrat Bill Clinton would be handily re-elected. And he was. The Republicans might nominate (as I always suspected) good venerable Bob Dole. Dole was one of the party’s most senior members, a World War II hero, and had been hoping for the top job for some time – but in a party still fresh in the memories of Ronald Reagan, he didn’t exactly make a splash. So the party nominated him, took the loss, and came back stronger in 2000.
Could Democrats do this now? Could the Harris/Walz ticket be a sacrificial lamb? Will Democrats delay the 2024 election and hope to find a better candidate to run against JD Vance in 2028? Granted, they could hardly find a worse one, and choosing Walz doesn’t exactly improve their chances.
Was this decision deliberate? Did the Democrats just torpedo Kamala Harris? Consider that Eric Holder, who was in charge of vetting the vice presidential nominees, is an Obama creature; make of that what you will. Moreover, it is doubtful that Kamala Harris has any idea about the fleet of buses she will be thrown under if this actually happens.
Maybe I’m reading too much into it. But that’s one possible explanation for why Kamala Harris and her people made such a stunningly bad choice.
