Staff Reports
In a recent political spectacle, Vice President Kamala Harris found herself at the center of a media storm, largely criticized for having a sparse schedule that consisted primarily of a CNN town hall. Harris, perhaps feeling the heat from her critics, made remarks aimed at former President Donald Trump, claiming he is increasingly “unhinged and unstable.” According to her, if Trump were to return for a second term, essential figures like John Kelly, his former chief of staff, wouldn’t be there to keep him in check. This remark has raised eyebrows across the conservative spectrum, as many believe it’s a classic case of political projection.
Here’s where things get interesting. John Kelly has repeatedly vocalized his concerns about Trump’s character, yet his credibility is under scrutiny. He’s not exactly the paragon of virtue; he once referred to service members who died in battle as “suckers and losers,” a claim that was debunked by practically everyone who served with him. Harris seems to be latching onto Kelly’s critiques like a desperate swimmer clinging to a lifebuoy, but those on the right question how much weight his words carry given his history.
The terms Kelly used to describe Trump—dictatorial, authoritarian, and militaristic—are highly charged. However, when examining the facts, one can’t help but notice that Trump signed significantly fewer executive orders than his predecessors. Notably, Jimmy Carter holds the record for the most with 320, while Trump signed only 220. Ironically, Biden has been somewhat lackadaisical, with just 143 orders under his belt. This makes one ponder whether Kelly’s assessment of Trump as a centralizing force is misguided and reflective of his own biases.
Furthermore, Harris’s narrow focus on Kelly’s criticisms overlooks a broader narrative: the current administration’s policies on military engagement. The Biden-Harris administration has seemingly authorized military actions on American soil, which raises questions about who is centralizing power here. This alarming shift has gone largely unmentioned in the mainstream media, yet it’s critical. The conservative perspective on these military guidelines wouldn’t have gone unnoticed if they involved Trump.Then there’s the matter of Kelly’s allegation regarding suppressing opposition. While it’s fair to say Trump often pushed back against the media—especially outlets like CNN—he never resorted to revoking press licenses or outright censoring dissenters. In contrast, the current administration has used social media platforms as tools for censorship, stifling conversations around topics like COVID-19 data. If we’re talking about whose administration has a penchant for suppression, a closer look might suggest the current regime has inherited a rather heavy-handed playbook.
As political theater continues, it’s worthwhile to consider the credibility of those seen as “heroes” by the left. Figures like Kelly and Liz Cheney seem to gain favor in liberal circles only after turning their backs on Trump and aligning themselves more with Democratic ideals. It raises a crucial question: If these individuals had unwavering integrity and principled stances against Trump, why did they stay in his administration for so long? Their motivations often feel more personal than principled; it seems odd that they suddenly shine in the media spotlight after being exiled from Trump’s orbit.
In the end, Harris’s comments about Trump and John Kelly’s critiques serve as a reminder of the political antics that frequently cloud the airwaves. With high turnover rates in Harris’s office and a string of disgruntled former aides, the Vice President may be cautious before pointing fingers. The drama continues in politics, but those tuned in must look beyond the headlines and consider the intricacies of who’s saying what and why.
