“Mantle of Change”

David Wasserman, a Cook Political Report elections analyst, was quoted in Friday’s Wall Street Journal:

This has been the central challenge for Harris in the snap election: can she seize the mantle of change [from the present Biden/Harris administration or from the prior Trump administration]?

Can she, indeed? She has said within the last few years that she would ban fracking and that she would decriminalize coming over our border illegally, among other things. Her erstwhile Senate colleague Bernie Sanders (I, VT) said late last summer that any words she’s saying now that differ from those positions are only words uttered to garner votes, not serious policy changes. Harris said this fall that her values haven’t changed. In two separate interviews within the last couple of weeks, Harris gave one of the few direct answers she’s ever given to interviewer questions, this one to the question of what she would do differently from Biden. Her direct answer both times was that nothing came to her mind.

Now, at this late stage of the election season (9 days, including today, before Election Day), who would believe her if she did claim explicit, clearly stated, and materially differing policies? How could anyone tell such changes would be sincerely claimed and not just more words as Sanders characterized them earlier? Who could believe such changes, representing as they would—as they must, if they’re truly different—changes to her values?

True Enough. However.

Progressive-Democrat Vice President and Party Presidential candidate Kamala Harris held a town hall campaign event in Delaware County, PA, Wednesday. CNN‘s Anderson Cooper moderated the event.

No less a light than Progressive-Democrat and ex-President Barack Obama senior official David Axelrod was unimpressed with her failure to perform.

The thing that would concern me is when she doesn’t want to answer a question. Her habit is to kind of go to “word salad city,” and she did that on a couple of answers. One was on Israel. Anderson asked a direct question, “Would you be stronger on Israel than Trump?” And there was a seven-minute answer, but none of it related to the question he was asking.

That’s true enough, although it’s less a matter of Harris not wanting to answer such questions so much as it is that she has no answer to them; she’s that unprepared.

CNN‘s Jake Tapper:

She focused a lot more on Donald Trump, I think it’s fair to say, than she did on many specifics in terms of what she would do as president[.]

That’s because that’s all she has. She has no policies of her own, other than the ones she’s clearly articulated over the years—banning fracking, decriminalizing coming across our border illegally, continuing Party profligate spending. She has given one direct answer on the matter, twice: when asked by different interviewers what she would do differently from Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden, her clear and unequivocal answer was that she couldn’t think of anything she’d do differently.

That however, though: a significant part of her resorting to Axelrod’s word salad city is Cooper letting her get away with it. He chose not to follow up on her evasion; he chose not to press her and repeat, or even restate, the question and insist she give a substantive answer.

Cooper is an example of the coddling the press (Tapper lately notwithstanding) does of Harris.

No Compromise

Not even a little bit. That would be the outcome of a Progressive-Democratic Party majority in the next Senate as that majority eliminates the filibuster. One outcome of that refusal is demonstrated by Progressive-Democrat Vice President and Party Presidential candidate Kamala Harris in a Tuesday interview with NBC.

Q: What concessions would be on the table? Religious exemptions, for example, is that something that you would consider with a Republican-controlled Congress?
Ms Harris: I don’t think that we should be making concessions when we’re talking about a fundamental freedom to make decisions about your own body.
Q: To Republicans like, for example, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, who would back something like this on a Democratic agenda, if, in fact, Republicans control Congress, would you offer them an olive branch, or is that off the table? Is that not an option for you?
Ms Harris: I’m not gonna engage in hypotheticals, because we can go on with a variety of scenarios. Let’s just start with a fundamental fact: a basic freedom has been taken from the women of America, the freedom to make decisions about their own body, and that cannot be negotiable—which is that we need to put back in the protections of Roe v Wade. And that is it.

Leave aside Harris’ cynical distortion of the legal fact (cynical because as the talented prosecuting lawyer that she is, Harris knows better): there never has been a fundamental freedom for a woman to have an abortion. There has been a Supreme Court opinion that a woman can have an abortion under some conditions. Court opinions have the force of law, but they are not law: only Congress can make laws under our Constitution. In the present case, that Court opinion was rescinded under Roe.

The larger matter here is what it is women should be allowed to do—what their fundamental right is—under a Harris administration. That fundamental right is a woman’s “right” to kill the baby she’s carrying. To deny even a religious exemption to that is to deny a fundamental right that actually exists: the baby’s right to life.

It’s Just an Anecdote

One instance doesn’t make a trend, but still….

An electric emergency vehicle belonging to a fire department in Germany caught fire and burnt down the new fire station.
The fire…started from a vehicle that “contained lithium-ion batteries and an external power connection.” The blaze destroyed nearly a dozen emergency vehicles and caused between $21.5 million and $25.9 million in damage.

It’s just an anecdote, but how many gasoline- or diesel-powered emergency vehicles have burned down their hosting fire stations, much less destroyed millions of dollars in equipment?

Favoring Illegal Aliens over Citizen Homeless

That’s Chicago’s Progressive-Democrat Mayor Brandon Johnson is doing while pretending to adjust down his city’s illegal alien sanctuary status. The subheadline makes the case clearly:

The Windy City is merging its migrant shelter system with the city’s traditional homeless shelter system

And

The overhaul will see 3,800 beds added to the city’s current homeless services system of 3,000 legacy beds….

Johnson is claiming in his press release on the matter that his system now is a unified sheltering system to serve all Chicagoans.

Where to start. Couple things, in particular. The first is that if Johnson had 3,800 beds all along, why didn’t he allocate them sooner and to the shelters that accommodate the city’s resident homeless?

Because, the second thing is that he’s confused about who is a Chicagoan. Illegal aliens are not at all Chicagoans, they’re illegal aliens.

This is Johnson treating illegals at the direct expense of Chicago’s homeless.