Staff Reports
The latest installment of political soap opera was delivered this week by none other than Vice President Kamala Harris and her trusty sidekick, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz. The duo appears to be no fans of Donald Trump’s ambitious proposal for three debates this month. Instead, they have graciously gifted the American people a single showdown in September, with a second, yet-to-be-scheduled debate in October, as if that’s the kind of philanthropic attitude that voters were clamoring for.
While the Harris-Walz campaign broadcasts this information with a flair for the dramatic, it’s hard to overlook the irony of a campaign that preaches about open discourse while dodging real engagement with the opposition. Setting the date for September 10 for Harris versus Trump, they’ve left those of us with a sense of humor scratching our heads over why the Vice President is picking and choosing which debates suit her fancy. After all, nothing screams confidence like skipping out on a few direct confrontations.
As for Walz, he will indeed have his moment on stage with GOP vice presidential nominee, Senator J.D. Vance, on October 1. However, and this is a big however, the Harris-Walz camp has turned down the offer for an earlier debate on September 18. The refusal, framed as a red-carpet welcome for the serious issues at hand, is more akin to slamming the door in the face of accountability. Apparently, all that talk about “delivering results” only applies if the podium is occupied by Democrats.
VP Kamala Harris is prepared to hold no more than two debates against former President Donald Trump—one is the previously agreed to Sept. 10 showdown on ABC, and the second will take place in October.https://t.co/4TgxjVth5x
— Larry Elder (@larryelder) August 15, 2024
Michael Tyler, the communications director for the Harris-Walz campaign, went on record (for all that it’s worth) to proclaim that debates are more about an exchange of visions than real engagement. However, when it comes to actually articulating those lofty visions, they seem to be practicing the art of selective visibility. Voters are told they deserve to see leaders share their plans for the future, but apparently, those exchanges can’t involve too many dusty old debates, especially those that involve the likes of Donald Trump.
And let’s not forget the delightful contradiction in Tyler’s statements. While he insists that “the games end now,” it’s his own team that seems to be setting the rules. Trump’s proposed schedule had him taking the debate stage on multiple occasions for a full view of contrasting ideologies, but it seems the Harris-Walz squad prefers to keep their competition at arm’s length. This leads to the amusing conclusion: if their grand vision for America is to be seen and heard, why is there such an aversion to actually sharing it with anyone holding a different opinion?
With the bright lights of the debate stage fast approaching, it remains to be seen whether Harris and Walz can resist the urge to hit the snooze button on the American conversation. What’s easier? Accepting the debate challenges and standing by their record or continuing to dodge and weave through the political landscape? It looks like they’re opting for a leisurely stroll past accountability and openness. One has to wonder how many voting Americans will tune in for the next act in this ongoing circus.
