and yes, it's about the same logic.
Posted on 07/26/2024 8:19:09 AM PDT by Eleutheria5
On "Forbes Newsroom," political scientist Charles Lipson reacts to President Joe Biden's Oval Office address after he dropped out of the presidential race and Vice President Kamala Harris' 2024 campaign.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
1) Underqualified for the job
2) Detestable personality
3) ?
1. Irreversibly welded at the hip to Biden’s rotten record.
2. Detestable personality.
3. Way way out left wing record of her own.
4. She stoopid.
and yes, it's about the same logic.
*
4) No one can remember how to pronounce her name
Comes down to the media. Will they ask her any questions that aren’t related to how shes going to win the election? They have the power to make it a debate about her ideas, her policy positions or simply a discussion about how dangerous Trump is for democracy.
Never forget who sponsored the $950.00 theft bill in CA.
How Kamala Harris Helped Create a Crime Wave in CA
https://reformcalifornia.org/news/how-to-stop-the-ca-crime-wave-kamala-harris-helped-create
Kamala Harris is trying to run for President right now as “California’s Prosecutor” — but she’s actually one of the biggest reasons why California is experiencing a dangerous crime wave.
Her real problem is that for the past three years the Biden administration used her.
They used her as the fool to make the incapacitated guy look like a better alternative. You really want to replace Biden? Look who is waiting in the wings. Better think twice.
The Biden administration fully embraced, and likely promoted, this approach.
And now? Suddenly we are to believe what? She is just awesome!?!?
So if the Democrats ran a Skunk for President the MSM would tell you the Skunk taste so good it had to evolve with a stinky defense mechanism.
The MSM just needs warm body for them to coalesce around.
She’s not actually at all “underqualified” (VP, US Senator, AG for the largest state, prosecutor, attorney, etc.), she’s just an annoying, unintelligent, and corrupt leftist.
In today’s world, credentialed does not equate to qualified in a meritorious sense.
Think of a Ph.D. from Morgan State University.
But “qualified” and “qualifications”, which I hate as a standard for any kind of hiring, imply straight credentials—instead of talent or ability.
If it becomes clear Harris cannot win over Trump, do the Democrats get the chance to drop her and choose another candidate?
I disagree. An employer’s listed, desired qualifications should only reasonably and genuinely seek talent and ability.
DEI must DIE.
That’s how it should be (and it doesn’t necessarily apply to DEI), but that is not how the term is used. Simple English.
I see your hearkening to “how the term is used.”
(Here insert my rant about HR.) In the good old days (go back thirty years, when I ran the company), HR was made to understand “qualifications” in an interpretive sense, not via check-boxes that even a eight-year old could check.
Thirty years ago only takes us back to the ‘90s. “Qualification” was in its full modern use then.
The idea, bringing in DEI before it was called such, was to consider all candidates who are “qualified” by some experience or training criteria, and then to cherry pick the demographic mix or balancers that you are looking for.
Media will be successful in rehabilitating her image. Trump needs to work on talking policy differences and their impacts, not relying on name calling as he did in 2016 and 2020. It worked against Hillary, but he didn’t switch strategies against Biden and he’s on the same path again. He doesn’t need to fire up his base, he needs to explain why his policies affect those few undecideds.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.