Mike Huckabee

In the Washington Examiner, Hannah Cox writes that she would love to celebrate a woman of color being picked for a veep running mate, but...

“Kamala Harris’s career ascension was built with the bricks of injustice, misfortune, and the corruption of the prison industrial complex...In between advocating for harsher penalties (including some truly bonkers repercussions for truancy), privacy violations like familial DNA searches, and civil asset forfeiture, Harris even found time to block new DNA evidence from being tested for a potentially innocent death-row inmate, Kevin Cooper. It should not go without comment that California’s justice system is one of the biggest hot messes in the country, highlighting the fact that Harris’s policies were both punitive and unsuccessful at producing better public safety outcomes. They also greatly harmed communities of color.”

On the other hand, one of the liberal news sites hailed Harris as the “most progressive” Attorney General California ever had.

If you’re wondering how someone can be that “progressive” and yet turn her state into a “hot mess” of injustice with policies that punished innocent people, violated civil rights, reduced safety and “greatly harmed communities of color,” then you haven’t been paying much attention to what “progressivism” really means these days.

Mike Huckabee

Here's a wrap-up and analysis of Tuesday’s primary election results by Democratic pollster and Fox News contributor Doug Schoen.

As he notes, the big story is the wins by anti-establishment candidates on both the left and right, a problem for leaders of both parties, but worse for the Democrats. This widens even further the great divide between the shell-shocked voters whom Biden will have to feed "moderate" baloney to convince them the party hasn’t gone crazy and the wild-eyed leftist nutjobs who are actually getting elected in blue cities and states and turning them into Third World countries (he’ll also need to win over the voters who actually voted for that!)

Also, deeply depressing but hardly unexpected, voters in Minnesota gave a big win to Rep. Ilhan Omar over her better-funded, equally “progressive” but not stunningly corrupt, anti-American and anti-Semitic challenger. It’s further proof that once Democrats get into a seat of power, no matter how awful they may be, removing them from it is like trying to pry off a deer tick.

Mike Huckabee

Over the years, I’ve often imagined that somewhere in Washington, maybe hidden under the Capitol dome, there’s a big switch, like the one in the lab in Frankenstein movies. Whenever the Party in power in the White House changes over, someone throws that switch, and immediately, all the standards change to the exact opposite of whatever they’ve been for the previous four to eight years.

Just a few of many examples: Under Democrats, the homeless problem disappears from the news. (Switch!) This uncompassionate Republican President is entirely to blame for the homeless population, even though they were there before he ever got the job…Bush was a “war criminal” for ordering bombing in the Middle East. (Switch!) Obama could order drone strikes that would kill dozens of innocent people and nobody cared…Obama built illegal immigrant detention centers on the border. Democrats yawned. (Switch!) Trump puts children in CAGES!...Obama weaponized government agencies against his political opposition and hey, they had it coming. (Switch!) Trump made a phone call and mentioned the guy who might be running against him in two years. IMPEACH HIM!!

The greatest example may be Hillary Clinton sucking up to Vladimir Putin, then (Switch!) becoming the biggest Russia hawk since Joe McCarthy after losing the election. Democrats who’d spent decades as Russia apologists suddenly started snarkily calling Trump voters “Ivan” and blaming Hillary’s loss on Russian skulduggery instead of her horrible record, awful personality and open contempt for the American people. What made this the ultimate metaphor for the changing double standard is that before the switch, Hillary once brandished a red “Reset” button prop to kowtow to Russia – an actual, physical “switch!”

I bring all this up because we have a new example of “The Switch” that rivals even Hillary’s “switch” from Putin sycophant to 1950’s style Russkie baiter. Throughout the Obama Administration, on my radio and TV shows, I chronicled Obama’s habit of legislating via executive order. Few in the Democratic Party or the media seemed to care, and even Republicans declined to challenge him, beyond public complaining. As one of Obama’s aides put it, “Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Pretty cool.”

Except it wasn’t cool: it was plainly unconstitutional. Duties like making immigration law or ratifying treaties are specifically reserved for the people's elected representatives in Congress. Then Trump was elected, and (Switch!) suddenly, the President had no power to issue executive orders. Every EO was challenged in court. He dosen’t even have the power to rescind an Obama executive order (DACA) that Obama repeatedly admitted he had no power to create before he did it anyway.

And then came this weekend’s executive orders to extend coronavirus relief when Congress deadlocked (remember, Obama justified his DACA order by claiming that if Congress wouldn’t act, he had to.) And what was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s reaction? She was fine with Obama's end-runs around Congress, but now, she’s threatening a legal challenge because Trump's orders are “Absurdly unconstitutional!” (FYI: Trump had the DOJ vet his orders and determine that they are constitutional under the President’s power to allocate relief funds in the case of natural disasters.)

So (Switch!) now, the Constitution that was ignored for eight years suddenly must be followed to the letter, according to Nancy Pelosi. How long do you think it will take for the switch to be flipped back the other way if Joe Biden is (shudder!) elected President? Considering that he’s vowed to reverse Trump’s protections of First Amendment religious liberties in his first week in office, I think we all know the answer to that.

Mike Huckabee

We’ve been looking at Kamala Harris from our own perspective as conservative Trump supporters. But what about those folks on the far left, the so-called “base” of the Democrat Party? Harris has THE MOST liberal record in the Senate of anybody there –- just to the left of Bernie Sanders; I am not kidding –- so you’d think they’d be thrilled with this choice. Think again.

As reported by Matt Vespa at TOWNHALL, leftist reporter Michael Tracey communicated in a series of tweets his utter disdain for this VP pick. Apologies in advance for a little rough language, but it does drive home what he thinks of her.

Vespa’s report reminds us what a major train wreck Harris’s presidential campaign was, leading to her departure from the race even before they had the primary vote in her own home state of California. That's how bad it was.

The tweets from Tracey reveal the problem not only with Harris herself but (perhaps inadvertently) with the entire Democrat Party. Tracey wrote: “Kamala’s past as a hardline prosecutor doesn’t endear her to left-wing voters, and her most recent embrace of an Extremely Online activist rhetorical style doesn’t endear her to “Law and Order” voters. So she’s in a weird political “no man’s land.” Who’s her natural constituency?”

In other words, no matter which way she goes, she alienates a major segment of Democrat voters. I would add that the Biden campaign's thinking may be that Democrats detest Trump so much that they won’t much care. That might be correct, even though what they hate is a wildly distorted abomination, an evil fictional creation, not Trump the real person. The media have done quite an effective job of demonizing him.

For Kamala, all of this is just posturing, anyway, a balancing act to use until the polls close on Election Day. How she “defines herself” during the campaign has little to do with how she’d use power if she really got it, or to whom she would be beholden.

Tracey praised Tulsi Gabbard’s evisceration of Harris at one of the debates, calling the points she made “100 percent substantive and informed by Tulsi’s sincere beliefs on criminal justice policy.” In contrast, he described Kamala’s response as “smearing her [Tulsi] with unrelated nonsense.” As I recall, that’s pretty much how it went down.

We all know who walked away the winner of that contest: Tulsi. If they were going to pick a far-leftist --- Tulsi definitely is one --- who doesn’t shy away from a fight and can beat-down even an experienced prosecuting attorney like Kamala, the congresswoman from Hawaii might have been more of a crowd-pleaser. Then again, she barely registered among Democrats during the primaries.

Anyway, Tracey's anti-Kamala tweets get more and more scathing as you scroll down. Keep in mind that he’s from the far left of the party; it makes perfect sense that one of his criticisms is this: “After all was said and done the Democratic Party donors and professional class got pretty much exactly what it wanted.” And he is right about that --- not just about Harris, but about the strange gap within the current Democrat Party, a gap that perhaps no prospective VP candidate would have been able to bridge.