Kamala Harris is weeks away from – possibly – becoming the most important person in the world.
And she owes it all to an affair with San Francisco power broker Willie Brown, a man who ran the state legislature as if it were his own fiefdom (of course, ironically and depressingly, the state was better off then, but that’s a different story.)
That is a “sky is blue” kind of fact. She has an affair with the married Brown, he appoints her to a pair of state boards (paying a total of about $400,000 a year for about 20 meetings/days of work,) then has her shift from the Oakland district attorney’s office to become a deputy DA in San Francisco, she then runs for the top spot and – with the overwhelming support of the Brown machine – wins.
Harris had numerous other dalliances with a variety of the rich and famous and questionable before ending up married to Doug Emhoff, a very wealthy guy who got his nanny pregnant and then allegedly hit a girlfriend in the face so hard it literally spun her around.
Literally everyone knows all of that…except the Los Angeles Times it seems.
Check that – they actually do know but will not publicly acknowledge the facts.
In a piece on how wonderful it is that San Francisco elects women to things, the relationship between Harris and Brown was put thusly:
Brown, meanwhile, was an early mentor for Harris, appointing her to seats on the state Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board and the California Medical Assistance Commission before she was elected San Francisco district attorney in 2003. The two also briefly dated.
First, mentor. These days, that kind of “mentorship” would get Brown fired from the planet.
Giving gifts to mistresses is not mentoring women – it is giving gifts to mistresses so they will keep being your mistress. One would assume most current corporate or government
“mentoring” programs would frown on that sort of behavior.
Second, as to “briefly dated,” that is like calling Hurricane Helene “a spot of rain.” It lasted a while, it was very public, and everyone knew what was going on – see above.
The absurdity of the paragraph is truly Pravda-esque. Stalin didn’t kill anyone, Brezhnev wasn’t taxidermized with drugs before he technically died, and every fourth-grade girl wanted to grow up to smelt ore to fulfill the Glorius Five Year Plan.
Speaking of Pravda-esque, Donald Trump returned to Butler, Pennsylvania to hold what was essentially a continuation of the rally at which he was shot a few weeks ago.
One would think that would a very very big deal for the press, somewhat akin to JFK – if he had survived – going back to Dallas to give a Christmas speech in Dealey Plaza in 1963.
In other words, it took chutzpah rarely seen in politics.
The rally was big, the speech went well, Trump did the right by honoring those who had also been shot, J.D. Vance gave a good speech, and even Elon Musk showed up to warn the world about censorship.
But despite the overwhelming, well, oddity, of a person going back to where he got shot to finish a speech, the national media barely covered the event. Oh, he’s in Butler, here’s a minute or two, and by the way he lied and lied and lied. Moving on, one of our major advertisers has released a new drug to address the increasing problem of, um, tiny pinky toe toenails.
As to Musk, some commentators found it inappropriate that a person with such media influence and an actual financial stake in said industry would deign to speak – doesn’t he know that’s a conflict of interest?
Musk spoke about censorship and freedom of speech, something he proves his belief in every day by not “throttling” pro-Haris, anti-Trump traffic on Twitter/X. Musk does not “generate” news like the Times, its users amplify it and his allowing that to happen has cost him billions.
So, no, he can say what he wants and the only difference between his public full-throated support of Trump is that it is public and not hidden and denied and lied about like the rest of media does with its support of Harris.
Speaking of the rest of the media, it seems CNN is still paying Chris Walace to do things. One of those things was a piece he wrote touting his new book about how wonderful Richard Nixon was for not contesting the results of the 1960 election and Trump should learn that lesson.
Wallace admits the election was stolen from Nixon by the Chicago machine and LBJ’s Texas shenanigans. And that no matter what Trump follow his example:
That is why I wrote “Countdown 1960,” and why I think it has such relevance today. Sixty-four years ago, with the most powerful position in the world at stake, and with the difference between victory and defeat on a razor’s edge, Nixon chose to do the right thing– what was best not for himself, but for his country.
As we have learned so painfully, that choice is no longer guaranteed.
It’s funny when the entire premise of a book is absurd. While the argument that Nixon did the right thing can be made, the argument that the “lessons” of 1960 can be applied to today is patently false.
Just a few reasons why:
· The entire election system was not completely changed weeks before the 1960 election.
· Whether you voted for him or not, Kennedy was generally popular, unlike Joe Biden.
· Kennedy did not run a “basement” campaign – he ran the opposite, actually.
· The fraud that occurred in 1960 was massive but isolated to certain areas – it was not what would be called a “systemic” issue.
· The press had not spent the previous four years demonizing Nixon and his supporters as fascists and a fundamental danger to the nation.
· The federal government did not interfere in the election or the press overage prior to the vote.
In other words, the two events are simply not comparable.
Sorry, Chris.
For a bonus, I thought it might be fun to offer an entire movie. The folks at Rifftrax a few years ago did a comedic comment track on the wildly terrible movie “Birdemic.”
And here is the entire thing for free from YouTube. It really is that funny:
Don’t forget to visit the blurred candy aisle and thanks for subscribing!