John Smyth
2024-10-18 12:29:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink'She’s wildly, catastrophically, incontestably out of her depth.'
<https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4271758/posts>
'Kamala Harris is an idiot.
Since she replaced Joe Biden on the ticket, reporters have struggled
mightily to find kind ways of describing Harris’s ineluctable inability
to convey anything comprehensible, complex, or concrete. Harris, the New
York Times has variously proposed, has been “strategically vague,”
“light on detail,” and “careful.” Alternatively, she has “put her own
stamp on the art of the dodge”; learned to respond “to unpleasant
questions without answering them”; and shown an ability to “avoid
delineating her stance on some issues.” And yet, if one were to search
for a single world to sum up her candidacy, that word, apparently, would
be “joy.”
I disagree. I think that word would be “idiot.” Harris isn’t “vague” or
“careful” or disinclined to “delineate her stance.” She’s wildly,
catastrophically, incontestably out of her depth. She’s not “light”;
she’s dull. She’s not a “dodger”; she’s a fool. She’s not “joyful”;
she’s imbecilic. As Gertrude Stein once said of Harris’s hometown,
Oakland, there’s no “there there.” She’s a nullity, a vacuum, an
actress, an empty canvas that is incapable of absorbing paint. Search
through Harris’s historical press clippings and you will be astonished
by the vastness of space, for, in more than two decades of analysis and
reporting, Harris has not once been credited with a single valuable or
original idea. What you see on TV is what you get in private: a broken
battery-operated toy that can’t talk, that can’t argue, that can’t laugh
in the right places, and that badly malfunctions if expected to
transcend the superficial.'