Staff Reports
Kamala Harris recently graced Stephanie Ruhle with an interview, an event that one could generously describe as a spectacle in verbal gymnastics. Ruhle, who has openly displayed her affinity for Harris, argued on Bill Maher’s show that the public shouldn’t expect candidates to provide concrete answers, especially when that candidate is facing off against the legendary Donald Trump. This stance raises eyebrows — when did evasiveness become a virtue in political discourse?
In what could only be described as a hungry political move, Harris took to Ruhle’s soft questions, hoping for no scrutiny whatsoever. Despite this cushy arrangement, Harris still managed to fumble through the discussion. When discussing tariffs, she bizarrely claimed Trump lacked seriousness, despite being the person who has notably avoided articulating a coherent economic plan herself. It’s ironic that she lectures others on strategic economics when she can’t seem to respect her own policies or defend the tariffs that were initially implemented.
Kamala Does Trainwreck Interview With Stephanie Ruhle, Who Admits Harris Didn't Answer Questions https://t.co/D9zOgFq0Ii
— The Voter's Guide: to politics 🇺🇸 (@TheVotersGuide) September 26, 2024
Harris’s ignorance shines through remarkably during these conversations. While attempting to project strength, she displays an apparent lack of understanding of the very issues she chooses to address. It’s baffling to witness someone in her position discuss the need for a plan without providing one. One has to wonder whether she genuinely believes the economy can flourish under the weight of higher taxes, especially when she seems blissfully unaware of the consequences of raising taxes on corporations and how it invariably trickles down to working families.
An interesting moment occurred when Ruhle pressed Harris on what would happen if corporate taxes cannot be raised due to potential GOP resistance. Instead of addressing the question, Harris delivered a blank stare and insisted that the rich need to “pay their fair share.” This so-called fair share is nothing but a populist buzzword employed by the left to disguise their incessant appetite for tax hikes — a dangerous approach that endangers economic growth and job creation. The middle class, whom Harris claims to champion, is meanwhile stuck in the crossfire of an administration that’s wilting under economic pressure.
As the dialogue veered towards the difficulties of home ownership, Harris was quick to acknowledge the problem without recognizing her role in contributing to it. The alarming rise in inflation and soaring interest rates, both of which her administration has had a major hand in, have pushed the American dream of home ownership out of reach for many. Despite this, she attempted to position herself as a savior of the aspirational American spirit without presenting any tangible solutions.
When conversations shifted to uncomfortable subjects, like her not receiving endorsements from critical unions, Harris resorted to her typical evasive maneuvers. This nonsensical banter culminated in her ludicrous claim of having worked at McDonald’s, an assertion she couldn’t substantiate. At this point, the seriousness of her candidacy is seriously in question as she flits about topics with the depth of a kiddie pool.
Even Ruhle’s acknowledgment of Harris’s inability to answer fundamental questions must raise alarms. The idea that avoiding direct and clear policies is acceptable as long as it keeps the conversation light is simply unacceptable, especially in a presidential race. The entire performance feels less like a political discussion and more like a comedic sketch where the punchline is the candidate’s inability to string together a coherent thought. Maybe it’s time for voters to demand more than just hollow platitudes in the pursuit of office. After all, the stakes have never been higher in determining the future direction of the country.
