Share This Article with a Friend!

Assault on America, Day 338: For Democrats, ‘diversity’ is the bug that’s eating them alive

Kamala and Booker
There’s never a perfect moment to announce you’re quitting anything, but if ever there was a good time for Kamala Harris to bow out of the 2020 Democrat presidential nominating race, it was the other day in the midst of an already overheated news cycle.

With fellow Democrats engulfed in the Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff-led House’s bogus and unfounded impeachment witch hunt and President Donald Trump entangled with “mocking” NATO leaders in London, the nation’s attention was decidedly elsewhere for Harris’s had-to-be-embarrassing capitulation move. It's arguable the California senator never really had a legitimate shot to overcome the better known and more established candidates ahead of her in the Democrat pecking order, but nonetheless it was surprising to witness her surrendering the dream very early and with so little fanfare.

As one of two leading female Democrat candidates (the other being Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren) and the only minority contestant to reach (albeit briefly) the race’s top-tier, there were great expectations placed on Kamala’s narrow shoulders to do better, lay the groundwork for a durable campaign and potentially end up the last one standing at the end to face the arch-fiend Trump.

Alas, it wasn’t to be. For what it’s worth, Harris’s fellow African-American Democrat competitor, Cory Booker, lamented her exit. Like her race-based and mostly hollow campaign agenda, it was all about the color of her (and his) skin at the conclusion. John Gage reported at The Washington Examiner, “Sen. Cory Booker said he was ‘a little angry’ that his friend Sen. Kamala Harris dropped out the 2020 Democratic presidential race.

“’We started with one of the most diverse fields in our history,’ the New Jersey Democrat said Tuesday on MSNBC. ‘It's a damn shame now that the only African American woman in this race, who has been speaking to issues that need to be brought up, is now no longer in it.’

“He added the Democratic field is ‘spiraling towards’ a point where there would be ‘no diversity’ on the December debate stage. Neither Booker, who is black, nor Julian Castro, who is Hispanic, have qualified for the next debate.”

The horrors! What will the liberal commentators talk about before the December 19 event if they can’t drone on about Trump being too pale and how he typifies and represents white supremacists and other redneck GOP constituencies (aren’t they all?) and his championing of bigoted causes like tax cuts and a border wall? What’s the world coming to -- nothing but pasty white faces in the upper echelons of the Democrat party? Where’s Michelle Obama? Can Oprah still get in? How about begging Lebron James to retire from basketball and run as a Democrat this year?

(Note: To make matters worse, billionaire late entrant Tom Steyer met the criteria for inclusion in the next Democrat debate. What a joke.)

The Democrats’ long obsession with examining a person’s skin color, gender, sexual orientation or gender identity as the basis for assessing their true content of character -- and value as a political candidate -- is finally coming back to bite them. Gage further reported that Castro (the lone Hispanic in the field) wasn’t pleased with how the media had treated Harris, remarking, “I will say that the way that the media have treated Sen. Harris in this campaign has been something else. The way they've held her to a different standard, a double standard, has been grossly unfair and unfortunate.”

Huh? Different/double standard? How? The always compliant liberal cable networks and major newspapers took a mostly hands-off approach to covering Harris, occasionally highlighting a particularly egregious gaffe or a truthful account of her plummeting poll standing. But it was Rep. Tulsi Gabbard’s takedown of the Golden State hopeful during the July Democrat debate that initiated Harris’s unfortunate demise. From then on, American liberals took a good gander at her and didn’t like what they saw. Harris couldn’t have it both ways -- she couldn’t hold herself out as a tough prosecutor (i.e., the basis of her qualifications as a “servant of the people”) and still claim to be a supporter of all things “woke” and cool.

Further, Harris’s exceedingly conversational and overtly angry tone and snide manner of speaking didn’t help her. Whereas the eye-appealing Gabbard frequently smiles on stage and speaks in calm, measured sentences, Kamala always looked like she could barely suppress her contempt and hatred for Trump and the “deplorables” who voted for him. Bring us together as president? Not!

I’ve followed the Democrat race closer than most and Harris didn’t receive any more praiseworthy or disparaging treatment than the others. If anything, she earned her biggest kudos from the establishment press whenever she’d flap her trap over race or say something looney like she backed slavery reparations. Kamala’s big moment arrived in the first official Democrat debate in June when she looked directly at Joe Biden (standing close to her on stage) and scolded him for bragging about working with white segregationist Democrat racists way back in the earliest days of his senate tenure (which admittedly is like a half century ago) and for opposing mandatory busing.

“That little girl was me” she uttered to the inaudible sobs of bleeding hearted Democrats everywhere, especially those limousine liberals with acute cases of white guilt who couldn’t contain their feelings of privilege any longer. I’m surprised Beto O’Rourke (who’d pandered the previous day in the two-night event) didn’t leap out of his hole somewhere and shout, “You go, girl!” Harris wasn’t able to capitalize on the sympathy though. Not even a cute social media snapshot of her in grade school garb made much of a difference. There just wasn’t any substance below the obvious surface characteristics, and being a minority wasn’t enough for Democrat voters this time around.

Playing the victim in general just isn’t working for Democrats now. Hillary Clinton groaned and moaned about “glass ceilings” and other non-existent barriers during her time in the spotlight (let’s see, she was a lawyer, senator, Secretary of State, major party nominee… but she was held back?), but this current crop of Democrats doesn’t appear to be getting as much mileage from their “woe is me” appeals.

On several occasions, for example, “Pocahontas” Warren was exposed as a liar when she depicted herself as being preyed upon by the dominant culture. First there was the fake Native American ancestry thing (1/1024th Cherokee?), then it was shown she wasn’t fired from her early 70’s teaching job because she was pregnant (documents from the period show she was offered a job renewal which she subsequently declined) and more recently, when protesters revealed her kids weren’t as publicly educated as she’d insisted they’d been. Fib, fib, fib. Pander, pander, pander. This week Warren said she wanted to be the last president elected by the Electoral College (which clearly indicates she would move to abolish it in favor of a popular vote winner-take-all).

Thankfully it looks like neither Warren nor Harris will ever be elected to anything on a national scale. The Electoral College is protected behind the wall otherwise known as The Constitution and a future president can’t just be rid of it with it using a single sweep of the executive pen. The Founders’ brilliant presidential election system was specifically designed to protect the value of citizens’ votes in the respective states so that the large and populous jurisdictions wouldn’t automatically control the outcome of every election. Candidates would need to appeal to the broadest cross-section of voters in all regions of the country to win.

Just as Trump did in 2016. In Harris’s California, Clinton prevailed by well over four million votes on Election Day, providing for her “victory” margin in the national popular tally. Should one large state’s voters determine most winners? What do California residents have in common with those in North Dakota? Or Wyoming?

No wonder “Pocahontas” wants to do away with the current system. It’s the one “college” where she can’t lie about her ethnicity to get what she wants. Similarly, if Booker’s so concerned about “diversity,” why doesn’t he ever say anything about the woman who gamed the system to excel where others couldn’t? Shouldn’t more Democrats stop harping on Trump and his purported racism (that’s clearly not there) and look within themselves?

And where were Booker and Castro in 2016 when there wasn’t any “diversity” on the Democrat party ballot either? Both Clinton and Bernie Sanders are as white as ghosts, even if Hillary’s known to fudge a dialect or two to make herself appear to belong to minority communities.

“Diversity” doesn’t get anyone anything. Harris proved it. And maybe Hillary’s about to demonstrate it… again. Tyler O’Neil reported at PJ Media, “On Monday, Hillary Clinton said she has been ‘deluged’ with requests that she consider running for president a third time, entering the 2020 Democratic presidential race two months before the Iowa caucuses. As establishment Democrats have started to worry about frontrunner Joe Biden, candidates like Michael Bloomberg and Deval Patrick have jumped in the race. Clinton did not rule out another run, but she did suggest it was rather unlikely...

“In the 2016 election, both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were rather unpopular with voters. Trump arguably won because Hillary became more unpopular than him in the final week of the race. If she were to run again, Trump would likely beat her again — and win the popular vote as well.

“Ultimately, however, it is virtually certain that Hillary will not throw her hat in the ring for a third failed campaign. As she said, she would have to make up her mind very quickly ‘because it's moving very fast.’”

I disagree with O’Neil -- it’s not virtually certain that Hillary won’t run. And yes, time is running short for a traditional type primary campaign. But who’s to say ‘ol Crooked Hill won’t dive in at the last moment and ask for write-in votes? She doesn’t need to do much in terms of retail campaigning. Everyone knows her and they basically understand what she’s for… and against.

There isn’t another would-be candidate in America who would enjoy the advantages Clinton would have on day one. With the indisputable weakness of this year’s Democrat field, Hillary would become one of the top-tier candidates from the outset. She can safely sit back another month or so, watch as her “opponents” destroy themselves in another debate and portray herself as a “white knight” (or cherry picker) pre-ordained to save the party and the country from Trump.

Kamala Harris’s hasty withdrawal from the 2020 Democrat presidential race further exposed the party’s weakness vis-à-vis President Trump. The field’s lack of “diversity” is only one problem to overcome when competing against a strong opponent on his turf and trailing badly in the substance category. Democrats are in big trouble.

Share this