One of the challenges of defeating Kamala Harris is figuring out just what to slam her on. There are so many powerful lines of attack to use against this leftist hack that it takes some consideration to figure out which is the most effective. But already, some Republicans are trying to help leftists place some of the most potent attacks are being put off limits. We’re being told there are certain things we just can’t say about her. We’re not supposed to mention that she’s a goofy weirdo with an evil laugh. We’re not supposed to mention she’s an incompetent DEI hire. And, of course, we’re not supposed to talk about her sordid history of sexual ladder climbing.
No. We hit her with everything.
We must talk about whatever is important to any audience at any given time. Not every attack is appropriate from every critic; some attacks are more generally effective than others, while some attacks are effective with niche groups but ineffective with other groups. We need to pick and choose from her smorgasbord of atrocities. But there will be no declaring that some attacks are just too mean and, therefore, illegitimate. If you don’t have the stomach to point out her creepiness, her DEI incompetence, or her past as an eager protΓ©gΓ© of powerful dudes, don’t presume to lecture those who do.
Many people I respect want to avoid the harsher personal critiques, but they think that for a good reason – because they believe other attacks are more effective. It’s not that these people are weak. It’s that they want to win and, therefore, prefer what they consider to be stronger attacks. These are tactical differences, and there are good arguments that there are better lines of attack than those three above. For instance, the Trump campaign is pursuing her pinko policies as its main line of attack. I tend to agree, in general. Her communist policies are disgusting, and credit goes to fellow Gulf War veteran David McCormick – if you are a Gulf War vet, you know a little something about total victory – for putting up the first and deadliest ad eviscerating her policy.
But we should not declare the other lines of attack forbidden. You don’t forgo a weapon in a death match because using it is unsporting. You certainly don’t do it because the truth is somehow unseemly. Our country is in the balance. I’m willing to be unseemly if that’s what it takes. And for some people, we are trying to reach, that is what it takes.
Not all audiences will respond to mocking her hyena cackle or her general weirdness. Some will. The DEI critique will fall flat for some people; however, it is deadly to her in front of other audiences, like the working class and white-collar workers people tormented by incompetent higher-ups put in position because of their skin tone and plumbing. Some people will not respond well to talk about her grody body count, but others think her dalliance with the elderly Willie Brown getting her first political gigs is important and disqualifying.
We do not get to presume to decide what bad facts about Kamala Harris should matter to our voters. They get to decide that. There are a lot of voters out there – like me – who are disgusted by the fact that her dating history gave her a head-start in politics. Maybe it does not bother you, maybe you think it doesn’t matter, but it bothers me, and I think it matters. And the Democrats have been less than reticent about deploying rhetorical sex life bombs on Donald Trump. Where was the “Oh well, I never!” chorus then?
The rap on this line of attack is that it will turn off squishy suburban women. Yes, some will be traumatized, literally shaking and seeking consolation from their cats. But it’s not going to turn off all suburban women. I’m not convinced that suburban women generally want to hand wave away Kamala’s Jezebel act – as if no woman has even been critical of another woman’s antics. Have they ever met women? And a lot of men will respond to this line of attack, too. Why should we ignore appealing to them to avoid offending people who will never support us?
The fact that some people find talking about her personal resume distasteful doesn’t change the fact that there are many people out there for whom this is an important fact that, if known, will make them disinclined to vote for Kamala Harris. That’s what we’re after – disinclining people to vote for Kamala Harris, not burnishing our credentials as good people who are nice and seemly and would never, ever send a mean tweet. The mean attacks matter to a lot of people, and they have a right to have it matter to them. We cannot tell the customer what he wants; we need to give the customer what he demands.
Again, this is not to say these are generally effective lines of attack or that they would work launched from every speaker to every audience. After all, they could turn off some gettable voters or take up the space of better, more effective lines of attack. Not every message must be delivered by every messenger. For instance, Trump should mock her weirdness because that’s what he does. He should point out that if not for DEI, she would be a shabby HR director at some second-tier marketing company in San Jose. But he should focus, as he has been, on her policies and her participation in Dementiagate rather than dating history, not to be nice but because leaving that can of worms to surrogates is more effective. That line of attack from Trump himself would be counterproductive, so he should not launch it.
It’s all about getting voters a complete picture of this nightmare woman. It’s not about being nice. We need to spend exactly zero time tone policing our own side. I don’t expect Mike Johnson to get up there and talk trash about how she was Montel Williams’s bimbette, but I do expect him to shut up about the conservatives who do. Some conservative commentators will hit her on that, and we don’t need any prissy scolds performatively chastising them. It’s not our job to tell other conservatives to behave or to deplore them for honestly reporting on Kamala Harris’s many flaws. If she doesn’t like it, she can get in a time machine and choose better boyfriends.
I have even less use for those who would run away from the fact that she is the ultimate diversity child. I find it absolutely bizarre that these Fredocons are telling us that we should cease pointing out that Kamala Harris is an incompetent DEI hire. She is an incompetent diversity hire. There’s no dispute about that, at least until her regime media allies memory hole all the Democrat celebrations of her being a diversity hire like they edited the ones about her being the border czar.
The leftists are already out there trying to get us to stop calling her a DEI dowager. They’ve decreed that it is a racial slur to point out that a person benefited from DEI while at the same time asserting that DEI is necessary, good, and wonderful. It’s all baloney, and we shouldn’t play along with it. The regime media hacks are already calling us “racist,” so who cares if they taunt us a second time? The fact is that DEI is electoral poison, something just hated not only by our own voters but by the kind of voters who we are trying to bring over to the Republican side. Do you think there’s some sort of love for DEI among the working-class guys in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin? No. A DEI advocate is as popular as a herpetic participant at a San Francisco orgy, an image that I cite for no particular reason.
Why would we give up any line of attack? And why would we give these creeps any credit when it comes to choosing our strategies and tactics? Do we think the regime media is trying to help us? “Conservatives, don’t you talk about DEI because that’s going to make it harder for Trump to win!” Come on.
It’s totally inexcusable that there are also allegedly conservative-oriented people out there advocating that we forego this powerful weapon. Many of them are the kind of people who, like Jeb!, are more comfortable in failure mode. Winning makes them uncomfortable; doing what has to be done to win even more so. It’s coming from a bunch of soft Beltway people trying to ensure that no one screams at them about being racist while they are picking out organic tomatoes at Whole Foods.
Nothing is off the table; no one gets to tell our voters what does and does not matter. But that does not mean we should not focus, prioritize, and target our messages and use the appropriate messengers. We must be flexible and nimble. We must choose the smart who, what, when, and how to achieve the most dramatic effects on the target.
But we must embrace the concept that there are no enemies to our rights. We cannot attack each other for how we message. No tone policing. No content policing. If you get some conservative-oriented guy out there talking about how Kamala Harris was passed around like a bad penny or about how she’s the quintessential quota queen, and you don’t like it, shut up. Stop talking. It’s not your problem. It’s not your place to presume to correct fellow Republicans. Let them do what they do. Focus on your own tactics. If you’re not firing at the enemy, you shouldn’t be firing at all.
Let’s get serious about winning, people. Kamala Harris is a clown but a dangerous one who can absolutely win this election. If she does, our country as we know it is doomed. Her policies are poison – and this is probably the best way to attack her in general. But it’s not the only way to attack her. We must have, like with energy, an all-of-the-above strategy. We must hit her everywhere and hard. If you don’t have the stones to play rough, maybe you should go play a different game. This is all about winning.
