Cracker Barrel CEO praises company's 'Google star rating' while revealing huge financial losses



Cracker Barrel just had its quarterly earnings meeting, during which the CEO admitted she does not have "a crystal ball."

Sales have decreased since the 2025 logo and branding change that saw Cracker Barrel deliver the biggest marketing blunder of the year. The shift was so bad that the new branding became a national story, and the board member who pushed for it soon resigned.

'We know we are headed in the right direction.'

Still looking to recover from the disaster, Cracker Barrel put out its second quarter fiscal report for 2026 on Wednesday, and the report showed significant losses for a company of its size.

Total revenue took a hit, decreasing by 7.9% compared to the year before. Restaurant revenue dropped by 7.5%, with management explaining that traffic had declined by more than 10%.

In the earnings call, CEO Julie Masino — who was at the helm when the new store design failed — boasted to investors about the restaurant's Google review rating, one of the few highlights.

"Our Google star rating, which over the long run is strongly correlated with traffic, was 4.28 in Q2," Masino stated, noting that it was a six-year high. "This represents the highest quarterly score since Q2 in fiscal year 2020."

RELATED: Board member behind Cracker Barrel DEI rebranding disaster resigns after pressure — including from Glenn Beck

Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images

While Masino said, "I do not have a crystal ball," and that she does not have a "correlation that says when scores improve by X, traffic follows," she was confident that the company's "indicators" still correlate to "growth and improvement."

In addition to the Google reviews, Masino cited increased guest satisfaction scores, lower manager turnover, improved traffic within the quarter, and a "meaningful percentage" of guests returning who did not visit in previous quarters.

"We know we are headed in the right direction, and everybody is working hard to make that a reality," Masino added.

The CEO also boasted about the restaurant's business during Thanksgiving week 2025, which she called "a big week for us."

However, despite bringing in $110 million in sales, which represents between 12% and 13% of total revenue for the quarter, "Thanksgiving traffic was in line with the rest of the month, so it did not crazily outperform or anything like that," Masino admitted.

RELATED: 'I feel like I've been fired by America': Cracker Barrel CEO nearly brought to tears over redesign backlash

"Our disciplined focus on operational excellence is driving significant improvements in several key guest metrics, many of which serve as important leading traffic indicators," Masino said in the company's press release. "We have also taken additional actions to improve financial performance and remain confident that we are well-positioned to regain prior momentum."

In the end, the board of directors still declared a quarterly dividend of $0.25 per share, and the company is still expanding ever so slightly with the opening of two new stores.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Socialism didn’t win New York. Marketing did.



I oppose Zohran Mamdani’s Democratic Socialist agenda. But if Republicans are serious about winning elections next year and in 2028, they need to take a hard, unsentimental look at how he just won one of the most consequential mayoral races in the country.

This was not an ideological earthquake. New York did not suddenly “discover” socialism. What happened was a marketing and mobilization breakthrough. Mamdani’s campaign understood attention, simplicity, participation, and distribution better than anyone else in the race.

Republicans often confuse seriousness with stiffness. Mamdani showed that message discipline does not require lifelessness.

Joe Perello, the city of New York’s first chief marketing officer, noted in PRWeek after Mamdani’s victory that the campaign did more than communicate a message. It built an engine that converted online engagement into real-world turnout.

“For marketers and strategists alike, the implications are clear,” Perello wrote. “Growth hacking, iterative testing, and data-driven amplification can convert digital sentiment into real-world behavior. In Mamdani’s case, that meant converting hearts, clicks, and hashtags into ballots.”

Here is the part many on the right do not want to hear: Mamdani did not spend his time lecturing working-class voters about the virtues of socialism or defending failed economic theory. He focused on immediate, kitchen-table concerns and paired them with simple, slogan-ready answers.

Is halal food expensive? Make it cheaper. Struggling to get to work? Free buses. Grocery bills too high? Government-run grocery stores.

He took Bernie Sanders’ 2016-era talking points and filtered them through a polished, Obama-style optimism that voting-age New Yorkers were willing to engage with.

Most voters do not have the time — or patience — to think through how these promises would actually work. They just want to hear that someone intends to make their lives easier.

As Citizens Alliance CEO Cliff Maloney observed during Mamdani’s surge in the polls, the public’s lack of understanding about how government operates — and how socialism consistently fails — created the political environment Mamdani exploited. He did not create that environment. He mastered it.

Republicans’ digital blind spot

For years, Republican campaigns have treated digital media as messaging rather than infrastructure. Social platforms are used as megaphones for press releases, fundraising tools, or dumping grounds for cable-news clips. The underlying assumption is that persuasion happens elsewhere — on TV, at rallies, through mailers — and that digital simply amplifies those efforts.

Mamdani reversed that logic. Social media was not an accessory to his campaign. It was the campaign.

His approach drew praise even from outlets like the Guardian, where journalist Adam Gabbatt noted that Mamdani “has won social media with clips that are always fun — and resolutely on-message.”

His team treated TikTok and Instagram like serious growth channels. Short videos were not vanity content; they were experiments. Different neighborhoods, different faces, different tones, different pacing. What held attention? What sparked comments? What traveled across boroughs? Each post generated data, and each data point informed the next iteration.

This was politics run as a full-funnel acquisition strategy. Awareness led to engagement. Engagement led to identification. Identification led to turnout. Republicans can mock the aesthetics, but the mechanics work.

Energy is a signal

One of the most underrated elements of Mamdani’s campaign was how it looked. He was constantly in motion — walking Manhattan, running a marathon, bouncing between boroughs. Rarely behind a lectern. Rarely static. Always visible.

That energy communicated youth, optimism, and confidence in the same way John F. Kennedy outperformed Richard Nixon on television in 1960. A similar contrast appeared in 2024, when Donald Trump’s unscripted, high-visibility media strategy stood in sharp contrast to Joe Biden’s and Kamala Harris’ tightly controlled appearances.

The predictable response on the right is dismissal. ‘That’s just TikTok nonsense.’ ‘Our voters aren’t like that.’ Those excuses are comforting — and dangerously wrong.

In an age of low trust and low information, energy reads as competence. Movement suggests effort. Visibility substitutes for familiarity. Mamdani’s omnipresence created the impression — fair or not — that he was accessible and engaged with everyday life.

Republicans often confuse seriousness with stiffness. Mamdani showed that message discipline does not require lifelessness.

RELATED: When Bernie Sanders and I agree on AI, America had better pay attention

Photo by ANGELA WEISS/AFP via Getty Images

From supporters to fans

The most uncomfortable lesson for traditional campaigns is that Mamdani did not just mobilize voters. He activated fandom.

Much of the campaign content that flooded social media did not come from official accounts. It came from supporters remixing clips, creating fan art, cutting moments to music, and sharing them within their own networks. The campaign made Mamdani easy to clip, easy to celebrate, and then got out of the way.

Wired magazine described it as a rare case of participatory political culture usually reserved for celebrities.

This matters because peer-to-peer persuasion scales faster and carries more credibility than anything a campaign can manufacture. Fan-made content travels further, feels more authentic, and costs nothing. Republicans, by contrast, tend to over-police their messaging, choking off organic enthusiasm in the name of control.

Younger voters understand fandom instinctively. They grew up online. Mamdani did not lecture them about politics; he gave them something to belong to.

The wrong reaction

The predictable response on the right is dismissal. “That only works for Democrats.” “That’s just TikTok nonsense.” “Our voters aren’t like that.”

Those excuses are comforting — and dangerously wrong.

Trump understood this dynamic in 2024 when his campaign was largely shut out of legacy media. Figures like Charlie Kirk reached millions of Gen Z voters by blending serious political content with the humor and energy of youth activism.

Algorithms do not have ideologies. Participation is not a left-wing monopoly. Visibility, simplicity, and community are not progressive inventions. In a low-information, high-attention environment, the side that understands distribution wins.

The real danger is not Mamdani’s policies alone. It is a Republican Party that keeps confusing being correct with being effective.

RELATED: How anti-fascism became the West’s civil religion

Blaze Media Illustration

What Republicans should learn — now

First, treat digital as organizing, not advertising. Stop thinking in posts and start thinking in systems. How does attention become action?

Second, simplicity wins. Republicans often pride themselves on being right — and then lose because they are incomprehensible. Clarity scales. Long explanations do not.

Third, loosen control. Let supporters remix, clip, and share. Reach matters more than perfect phrasing.

Finally, build communities, not just campaigns. Email lists decay. Ad budgets run out. Communities endure.

The bottom line

I do not agree with Zohran Mamdani’s politics, and I do not want his policies implemented anywhere. But ignoring how he won would be malpractice.

He demonstrated how power is built today — not through party machinery or television dominance, but through attention, participation, and relentless simplicity. Republicans can learn from that reality, or they can keep losing to it.

Disagree with his ideology. But study his marketing. Ignore the lesson at your own risk.

‘There Is No Greater Genius’: Josh Brolin Praises Donald Trump

'He takes the weakness of the general population and fills it'

Reality Curb Stomps David French’s Psycho Fantasies — Again

To listen to The New York Times’ David French about Cracker Barrel, free speech, Christians, or anything at all is to abuse your own mind.

​The record-breaking flight that started as a Las Vegas marketing gimmick



An old Ford pickup truck barreled down an empty highway full of sand, swerving to keep up with the single-engine, fixed-wing airplane puttering several feet overhead.

From the passenger seat of the truck, a man angled a bucket up toward another man who was dangling from the open door of the Cessna 172 aircraft with “LAS VEGAS: Hacienda Hotel” painted brightly on the fuselage.

On day 36, Timm dozed off for an hour during his shift. When he woke up, sweating, they were in a canyon, somewhere in Arizona, maybe California.

After the man yanked the bucket up to the plane by rope, he collapsed back into his crawl space and the plane crept a little higher, a little farther from the ground, circling Nevada, California, and Arizona, again and again and again, coming down only for supplies, twice a day.

By the end of their journey, in February 1959, the two men in the plane had accomplished a remarkable feat, and it nearly cost them their lives.

Fruitcake and mobsters

The whole adventure began with fruitcake. Apparently, Warren “Doc” Bayley, an eccentric travel columnist, liked fruitcake enough to buy his own fruitcake business.

The company did well, well enough that Bayley sold it for a sizeable profit. He used some of the money to buy land north of Fresno, California, where he built a hotel. He called it the Hacienda.

Bayley traveled a lot for his work. He had stayed in every kind and quality of lodging. For years, he had been imagining what the perfect hotel would be like. And he would build it. He knew it.

The hotel business suited him, and he quickly turned the Hacienda into a chain.

Soon, he was eyeing a much bigger, much riskier property in Las Vegas: a hotel on the then-unpopulated south side of the Vegas Strip called Lady Luck.

At that time, the Strip was an isolated, undesirable area, far from the rest of the casinos and hotels. Halfway through construction, the financing collapsed. Suddenly it was becoming too big a hassle. Everyone gave up on the hotel. They assumed that it was too far out of the way and too lavish to ever make its money back.

Undeterred, Bayley signed a 15-year lease at $55,000 a month. To succeed, he would have to make a big move. He would have to rebrand the Vegas experience.

At the time, Vegas needed it. Most casinos were still firmly in the grip of the Mafia, and the wiseguys were increasingly unable to hide the funny business, which often included murder.

Selling the Strip

Bayley's Hacienda would be Mexican-themed, a family-friendly casino and hotel in direct reaction to the seedy, salacious excess of old Vegas.

Putt-putt golf course. Go-cart track. A massive swimming pool. All at reasonable prices. Retirees from all over America would flock to the Hacienda’s iconic sign: the horse and rider in neon. And he was right. But in those early days, it was all dust and empty rooms.

All he needed was a gimmick. He’d tried the usual avenues: coupons, advertisements, faux word of mouth. He even hired attractive women to hand out flyers to passing cars.

It was time for something more drastic. Like any good salesman, he appealed to our imaginations.

Come fly with me

Human beings have always wanted to fly. We’ve always looked to the sky for hope. It’s where we’ve always wanted to go.

In his lifetime, Leonardo da Vinci wrote over 35,000 words and drew more than 500 sketches about flying machines and the nature of air. He was obsessed with bird flight. He wrote: “Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you will always long to return.”

Da Vinci could never have foreseen the industrial revolution, not the way it came about.

The first commercial liquid-fueled internal combustion engine was invented in 1872. Aviation began 31 years later, on December 17, 1903, with the Wright brothers, who after four years of research and design efforts, made history with a 120-foot, 12-second flight at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina — the first powered flight in a heavier-than-air machine.

We’ve gotten used to flight by now, so it’s easy to forget that it’s only been a little over 100 years. Easy to forget that every time a plane takes off or lands, it’s a miracle. It’s unbelievable that a 300-ton Boeing 747 can fly through the sky, safely, full of passengers and stale pretzels.

Still, miraculous as flight is, most of us find air travel tedious, mind-numbing, and claustrophobic. An hour on a plane is enough to irritate many people. Twelve hours is unimaginable. Any longer than that, the flight attendants better have an endless supply of tiny wine bottles, or else people will start snapping.

What kind of lunatic would test the limits of sanity by staying on a plane one minute longer than needed?

A lunatic's bet

That lunatic was Robert Timm, one of the slot machine mechanics at the Hacienda.

Timm was a bear of a man. He’d been a bomber pilot during WWII, and he had a passion for flying. He convinced Bayley that an endurance flight was exactly what the Hacienda needed to make a name for itself.

Cleverly, Bayley designated it a fundraiser for cancer research. It was gambling, but for a good cause: People would guess how long the plane would stay in the air. The person who guessed the closest time would win $10,000.

It would take a year or so to build and customize the Hacienda Cessna 172. Now an aviation icon and the most-produced plane of all time, the Cessna 172 had only been available since 1955.

Timm and another mechanic installed a 95-gallon Sorenson belly tank on the plane. That way, they could refuel midair with the help of a Ford truck and an electric pump. They also rigged the plane so that they could change the engine’s oil mid-flight.

Roughly the size of a Toyota Camry, the cabin of a Cessna 172 can snugly seat four people (but not a toilet). They removed all the seats except for the pilot seat and converted the rest of the cabin into a tiny makeshift living area.

Timm had tried marathon flights three other times, but never stayed in the air longer than 15 days.

His second attempt came to a halt with a massive boom. As he wrote in his journal, “at 4 a.m. one morning the entire sky lit up." He had been in the air during one of the 57 above-ground atomic bomb detonations set off during 1958 in the Nevada.

To complicate things further, there was a brand-new flight endurance record to contend with. To beat it, the men would need to remain in flight for over 50 days.

Medallion status

Timm and his co-pilot, John Wayne Cook, took off from McCarran Field in Las Vegas at 3:52 p.m. on December 4, 1958. To ensure that the men couldn’t land the plane surreptitiously, a chase car painted white stripes on the aircraft’s tires from below. These would scuff should they touch down before their official landing.

Most of the time, they refueled in Blythe (a desert town on the California-Arizona border) or swung out to Yuma, Palm Springs, or Los Angeles — where they made the occasional radio or TV flyby.

Confined to that cramped space, their everyday life resembled that of a prison inmate’s: lots of aimless reading and repetitive exercise and never-ending games — anything to pass the time as they buzzed around the sky. They had a little sink back there, and they “showered” by pouring bottled water over their heads.

They refueled twice a day, mid-flight, as a hose from the Ford tanker truck latched to the belly tank.

The two men piloted in four-hour shifts and did their best to sleep whenever they could, on a four-by-four cushion made of thick foam. It was hard to sleep, with all the rattling and mechanical groaning.

Asleep at the wheel

On January 9, day 36 of their flight, Timm dozed off for an hour during his shift. When he woke up, sweating, they were in a canyon, somewhere in Arizona, maybe California. Luckily, the autopilot had done its job.

Years later, he told a reporter: “I flew for two hours before I recognized any lights or the cities. I made a vow to myself that I would never tell John what had happened.”

Though he never said anything to Timm, Cook was aware of the near-disaster.

“… it was 2:55 a.m. and he [Timm] was fighting sleeplessness. On autopilot fell asleep 4000 FT over Blythe Airport found himself ½ way to Yuma Ariz 4000 ft. Very lucky. We must sleep more in the day time.”

All their food had to be mashed into thermos jugs, which were hoisted up with their daily supplies. Every other day, they got a quart of bath water, a large towel, and soap.

Darkness visible

A little over halfway through their journey, the plane’s generator went out. It had powered the plane’s interior lights and heating and was used to pump the fuel into the wing tanks. After that, they had to use a hand pump to move fuel up to the wings.

When it got really cold, they wrapped themselves in blankets, shivering. They had flashlights and had strung some Christmas lights through the cabin, but other than that they flew in the dark, a beautiful, endless darkness.

Cook wrote in his journal: “Hard to stay awake in dark place — can’t use radio — can’t use electric fuel pump. Pump all gasoline by hand, using minimum lights. … Don’t realize how necessary this power until all of a sudden — sitting in the dark — no lights in panel to fly by — flashlight burning out — can’t see to fix the trouble if you could fix at all.”

By the end of the marathon flight, they’d lost the tachometer, the autopilot, the cabin heater, the landing and taxi lights, the belly tank fuel gauge, the electrical fuel pump, and the winch.

Several times weather interrupted their refueling, and they had to scramble for a new opportunity, eyes shifting from clouds to fuel gauge, over and over.

They broke the record on Jan. 23, 1959, but kept going for another 15 days, until the spark plugs and engine combustion chambers became loaded with carbon, weakening the plane’s engine.

64 days, 22 hours, and 19 minutes. They’d flown over 150,000 miles through the air, roughly six trips around the planet.

The record stands to this day.

After the flight, Cook said: “Next time I feel in the mood to fly endurance, I'm going to lock myself in our garbage can with the vacuum cleaner running. That is until my psychiatrist opens up for business in the morning.”

Secretly, however, I’m sure he missed that feeling, the way he lived in the clouds, in the blue of the sky, high above everything, soaring like a bird.

Luigi Mangione and 'magic bullet' medicine



Why did Luigi Mangione allegedly target UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson?

The original consensus was something like: He had chronic back pain that surgery didn’t help (or even made worse) and that his insurance company wouldn’t pay to fix.

It’s possible the 'system' had a share in derailing Mangione’s life, but surely there are many other factors, including the belief that all pain requires treatment.

But apparently the surgery, which he had no problem paying for, was a success. On Reddit, he raved about it and even recommended it to others. There is no record of him complaining about back pain after the surgery.

We do have a record of Mangione complaining of other maladies: Lyme disease, irritable bowel syndrome, and brain fog — all relatively new conditions often regarded as having a psychosomatic component.

Chronic endless pain

I have a good understanding of this because I come from a family of doctors, and my mother is one of these chronic endless pain people. I also worked in Big Pharma branding for two years, as well as for other creepy, well-funded Silicon Valley health start-ups on the agency side.

Via these experiences, I have come to basically the same conclusion that RFK Jr. has. The American for-profit health/pharma system is the most evil single institution on earth. It's also the most powerful.

This should've become obvious during COVID, where it literally took over the world. It should also be obvious given that it currently has the power to mutilate our own children, sometimes against our will, and to addict them to expensive drugs they will have to take for a lifetime.

I'm dubious that what we're seeing with UnitedHealthcare and Luigi Mangione is the whole story, but I'm more interested in the glaring contradiction at the heart of the alleged killer’s motive, seemingly expressed in the message left on the shell casings: “Defend, deny, depose.”

Among Mangione’s online sympathizers, even those who don’t go so far as to applaud the assassination claim, believe there’s a coherent political message behind it. But that rests on a faulty assumption about pain: that it must always be "treated" via medicines and surgeries.

Physical diagnosis, spiritual condition

This assumption certainly benefits the pharma industry — the more patients with chronic and consistent pain, the better. The only limit is what their insurance is willing to pay. As rapacious as insurance companies may be, some claims actually should be denied.

It’s not uncommon to get a physical diagnosis for a spiritual condition. I've seen my mother go through this her entire life, always with some new pain somewhere or some all-encompassing bulls**t diagnosis like "fibromyalgia" that gives pharma open access to her insurance funds.

Literally millions of aging single women suffer from various versions of chronic pain. They have been told, not by insurance companies, but by pharma companies and the media, that this pain is the result of treatable illnesses. Yet, somehow the more profits are made, the more “treatable” new illnesses pop up in need of cures.

But when none of them work, which is actually a quite common occurrence, what exactly is an insurance company supposed to do? Just pay endless claims forever, knowing that nothing will work? Denying the claims at least communicates that it’s time to try something else besides paying pharma companies with perverse incentives.

Whose profit?

It’s true that companies like UnitedHealthcare shouldn't exist in the first place. Even Adam Smith, father of market capitalism, said specifically that certain products were too elastic to be handled by a market, and medicines would certainly fit that category. The fear surrounding a person's health, and the desperate reliance on authority, warps the market and creates a terrible potential for very deep, evil, and pervasive abuse.

This is exactly what has happened, and it's eaten the globe. But in this instance, it doesn’t seem that UnitedHealthcare's "profit motive" had much to do with Mangione’s struggles. Of course, Mangione’s alleged manifesto encourages us to see his motivations as purely political rather than personal. He is targeting the “parasites” to blame for America’s extremely expensive yet extremely ineffective health care system.

As a diagnosis of what needs to change, the manifesto, if you could even call it that, is unsatisfactory. It ignores the bad actors upstream of the insurance companies: the doctors who offer unnecessary surgeries for hundreds of thousands of dollars and the pharma companies that run commercials telling everyone that chronic pills are the solution to their chronic problems.

Bad pharma

It’s mind-boggling that such commercials are so prevalent. Pharma has become the single biggest advertiser in all media by a massive margin: It literally keeps the mainstream media alive. A culture that heavily restricts cigarette ads should ask itself why it gives free reign to legal international drug cartels to spread their sales pitches. What impact does that have on public health?

We saw the impact during COVID, where people abandoned family members to die because the TV told them to do so. And who was the TV being controlled by? Pfizer (pharma) and Fauci (public health). Not by the insurance companies who had to foot the bill.

It’s possible the “system” had a share in derailing Mangione’s life, but surely there are many other factors, including the belief that all pain requires treatment. Maybe in a less stubbornly secular society he would’ve been able to understand his suffering as a necessary — or at least inevitable — consequence of being alive. Maybe then a father would not have been murdered in cold blood.

But our society has no concept of beneficial pain. In fact, we’re obsessed with eliminating pain entirely. That’s why our medical ideal is to match cause and cure so precisely that one treatment can eradicate a disease with maximum efficiency — and without any collateral damage.

This power such treatments promise is so seductive that it’s easy to succumb to wishful thinking, if not outright delusion. It’s right there in the name we commonly use for them: magic bullets.

Tim Walz’s Position On IVF Shows How Extreme He Is

Before we can have the true “freedom” that Harris and Walz envision, we must stop fooling infertile couples with false hope

Selling the new Kamala



The reintroduction of Kamala Harris, her transition from a nationally disliked vice president to a transformational political savior, has been truly remarkable. All it took was Democratic desperation at the prospect of Joe Biden running in 2024.

Popularity is difficult to replicate. If you lived through the campaigns of Bill Clinton or Barack Obama and the excitement and buzz surrounding their respective messages, then you understand that Kamala isn’t like them.

You get the feeling that part of Kamala’s 'joy' tagline is a way to explain the laughter, though it is painfully obvious that the laughter does not come from a place of joy.

Both Clinton and Obama had “hope” and the promises of change. Kamala has “joy” and the continuation of an unpopular presidency. The packed house at the Democratic National Convention earlier this month doesn’t change things; it’s like the extravagant birthday party for the kid nobody likes. Large crowds of partisans don’t necessarily equal broader excitement, though you are asked to believe otherwise. It’s like saying flannel makes you a man of the people.

The redefinition of Kamala Harris is not an easy task. She has adopted politically unpopular positions in the past, from supporting open borders to ending private health insurance and shutting down drilling and fracking.

She is known, weighed down by the policies and mistakes of the Biden administration: inflation, lagging wages and a slowing labor market, the Afghanistan withdrawal, illegal immigration, the wars in Ukraine and Israel. She has zero significant achievements as vice president.

Part of the difficulty in moving forward from Biden’s failures is the fact that Kamala struggles to define herself apart from the Biden administration. The campaign’s official website still doesn’t address her positions on the issues.

One reason for the silence is political calculation, the thought that the less she says about the issues, the more she can campaign on platitudes: diversity and liberalism, freedom, democracy, whatever.

It took weeks for her to speak on the economy, and when she did it was proposals for more spending and modest tax cuts, with inflationary down-payment assistance (and she doesn’t know who will foot that bill), all while blaming businesses for inflation: “I know most businesses are creating jobs, contributing to our economy and playing by the rules, but some are not.”

This leaves the public asking: What specifically is Kamala for, and what does support for Kamala mean?

You might know the answers if you’re informed, if only based on her history. According to The Hill: “Based on her roll call voting record, Harris is the second-most liberal Democratic senator to serve in the Senate in the 21st century.” The average voter has much more difficulty in deciphering Kamala. They’ll have to vote to find out.

Kamala must be sold, and the media will do the heavy lifting. Dare we state the obvious? Their favorable coverage of the Democratic nominee is a campaign for the Democratic nominee.

The New York Times reports that “Joy Is Fueling Her Campaign.” Says who? The Kamala campaign. You’d think the media might want an objective source on that.

Are we to believe the campaign is not fueled by the desire for power? The fuel — what allows the campaign to go forward — isn’t millions of dollars in donations by corporations and special interests?

After her appearance at the DNC, the media gushed about Kamala’s choice of fashion: “A tan suit!” shrieked one New York Times writer.

Axios is defending Kamala’s plan to stop "price-gouging" at grocery stores — her attempt to deflect the causes of the Biden-Harris inflation — and reminding its readers that “Harris’ economic proposals, broadly speaking, are meant to help middle-class Americans deal with a higher cost of living.”

To that we ask: What policies?? Forget any analysis of why the middle-class is struggling or a discussion of the root causes of inflation. Voters don’t need to know.

All the while, the media isn’t pushing back on Kamala’s refusal to sit for interviews or take questions. It seems Kamala’s campaign and the media have the same strategy: Keep the public uninformed, lest they find out just who Harris and Walz really are.

But try as they might, her history will be known and the more radical parts of Kamala’s agenda will come out, no matter her attempts to moderate. Price controls are just the start.

There is also her support for taxation on unrealized gains — the profits that a person has yet to realize. This plan “calls for the creation of an annual 25% minimum tax on the unrealized gains of individuals with income and assets that exceed $100 million.”

This is a “radical departure” from the norm that subjects Americans to arbitrary valuations on arbitrary dates and imposes “double and triple taxation.” Once adopted, it is likely that it will apply to us all. Nobody will be safe; the government can’t constrain itself. Good luck with your 401(k) or your Schwab account or your home.

Can Kamala shake her liberal past, the statements she made in the 2020 race (supporting a fracking ban, for starters), her responsibilities as VP for the border, and the failures of the Biden administration?

Consider that Kamala doesn’t have the confidence to step out and establish who she is and what she believes. She lacks boldness — especially in comparison to her predecessors, evidenced by agreeing to only one debate despite the close race. But she also lacks something else: authenticity.

The proposals she previously advocated are disclaimed today. The central message of her campaign — aside from running against Trump — is lacking, perhaps because she is insecure in her own skin, anxious to the point of needing untimely and inauthentic laughter to ease her tension. You get the feeling that part of Kamala’s “joy” tagline is a way to explain the laughter, though it is painfully obvious that the laughter does not come from a place of joy.

The insecurity explains what might be her biggest mistake thus far: the choice of Tim Walz as vice president. She needs a follower because she isn’t a leader.

Kamala, the reluctant choice of the Democratic establishment, couldn’t afford to be upstaged by Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro or California Governor Gavin Newsom. Whatever their problems might be (and they are many), their intangibles far outweigh hers. Shapiro could have delivered Pennsylvania, but Walz is the true subordinate, one without aspirations beyond the vice presidency. He isn’t Kamala’s replacement or her competitor.

Instead, Walz is happy to play the minstrel, the cartoon of a white rural Midwesterner sold to suburbanites (credit to Walter Kirn for that one, I think). He’ll serve as the phony soldier, both literally and figuratively, in the phoniest campaign in recent history.

Editor's note: A version of this essay originally appeared at the Reactionary.

Gavin Newsom’s Anti-Gun Censorship Effort Just Took A Loss In Court

'AB 2751 effectively removes one viewpoint from the public conversation'