During his "My Take," Tuesday, "Varney & Co." host Stuart Varney argued Kamala Harris was "chosen" as the Democrat nominee to replace President Biden by party leaders who didn't want a divisive competition between rival candidates.
So, Kamala Harris is the anointed one.
Chosen in backrooms because party leaders didn't want a divisive competition between rival candidates.
It's a coronation, and the Democrats are rallying around her to give a sense of euphoric unity. Not everyone is happy.
US Vice President Kamala Harris during a campaign event in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, US, on Tuesday, July 23, 2024. (Getty Images)
Viewers of this program have often heard me sing the praises of Bret Stephens, a New York Times editorial writer.
His latest column is titled "Democrats Deserved a Contest, Not a Coronation."
In his opinion, the backroom choice allows party leaders to ignore the obvious weaknesses of Harris' candidacy.
For example, she's unpopular. As of Monday, this week, 51% of voters do not approve of her. She hasn't had a positive approval poll rating in 3 years.
She does not have a good campaign record.
She won only one competitive race, and that was for California attorney general, and she won by less than one point.
She's a bad manager. There's a constant churn among her staff.
Stephens says she has a penchant for excruciating banality. Not necessarily a good quality for a politician.
One example, "It is time for us to do what we have been doing, and that time is every day." That's banal all right.
Trump will exploit this kind of thing, and it will convince many voters that Harris is a lightweight.
She's a San Francisco liberal, out of line with most Americans.
All those weaknesses could have been exposed if there had been a contest among candidates, but party leaders went for a coronation instead.
Stephens believes it will end in failure. "Decide in haste, repent at leisure" he says, and I think he's right.