Liberal publication reveals what Democrats might blame Harris' loss on



Kamala Harris could lose the election for a multitude of reasons. For starters, she has alienated a great many men, Christians, pro-life advocates, and Hispanic voters and has struggled to distinguish herself politically from President Joe Biden.

Axios suggested on Sunday that what might ultimately cost Harris the White House is her strategic lack of transparency.

The left-leaning publication indicated that Harris and her team have repeatedly dodged questions about her political positions, responding with only, "No comment."

Harris, dubbed the "'no comment' candidate," has reportedly refused to indicate whether she still supports providing reparations to black Americans; "sanctuary cities"; the restoration of voting rights for all former prison inmates; welcoming multitudes of foreign nationals supposedly displaced by "climate change" to flood into the U.S.; providing taxpayer-funded sex-change mutilations to illegal aliens; ending the detention of illegal aliens; massive restrictions on drilling for oil; giving millions of illegal aliens smuggled into the country a pathway to citizenship; ending the death penalty; forcing automakers to cease building gas-burning vehicles by 2035; decriminalizing prostitution; closing private, for-profit prisons; and abolishing the Senate filibuster.

'There's no indication that Harris needs to offer specific, potentially divisive policies on any issue.'

In an apparent effort to appeal to moderates without disenchanting radical leftists, Harris — reportedly the second-most liberal Democratic to serve in the U.S. Senate in the 21st century — has tried to run out the clock on answering questions about what she actually believes in, responding only with doublespeak and conflicting messages.

For example, when Harris finally sat down for an interview with CNN's Dana Bash in August after dodging the press for five weeks, the vice president said, "My values have not changed." This quote prompted numerous sleuths to dig into what policies Harris previously signaled support for.

After KFile highlighted Harris' radical responses to a 2019 American Civil Liberties Union questionnaire, CNN's investigative outfit asked her campaign about whether the vice president's values had in fact changed — whether she still supported decriminalizing crack nationwide, giving felons taxpayer-funded sex-change operations, and exacerbating the border crisis.

The Harris campaign responded with a lengthy non-answer about how her "positions have been shaped by three years of effective governance as part of the Biden-Harris administration."

There were hints earlier on — besides Harris' refusal to sit down for interviews — that the vice president might be noncommittal policy-wise, short on answers, and keen to prioritize style over substance.

The Atlantic's Spencer Kornhaber noted in August that Harris' "oddball charm satisfies the content demands of the moment," suggesting that it mattered less what Harris was saying and more how she said it.

The New Republic recommended in September that Harris ignore the pressure to commit to specific agenda items and to instead rely on a "vibes- and values-based argument":

There's no indication that Harris needs to offer specific, potentially divisive policies on any issue — and all of the early signs suggest that doing so would be a mistake. Harris herself is not a wonk — she flopped in 2020 in part because she struggled to compete in a wonky, policy-heavy primary. And yet, even if she were a policy dork, there's little reason to believe that it would necessarily boost her chances: In 2016, Hillary Clinton offered more than 200 distinct policy proposals and lost.

It's left to be seen whether Harris' refusal to own up to her real views helped or hurt her cause electorally. However, Axios' Alex Thompson noted that "if she loses, she and her team will be blamed for leaving voters foggy about her true views and self. And President Biden will be blamed for backing a candidate with such a liberal track record."

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

Ahead Of Gun Trial, Joe Biden Frames Sappy Pro-Hunter Statement As Impartial No Comment

White House allies and apologists framed Joe's comments as routine because they were shared in the context of a dad who loves his son.

White House tries to clean up Biden's Maui-related 'no comment' gaffe with insane excuse 2 weeks later



Nearly two weeks after President Joe Biden said, "No comment," about the devastating Maui wildfires, the White House rolled out a novel excuse for the controversial response.

After the president relaxed on a beach while on vacation in Delaware, reporters asked Biden whether he had a response to the wildfires. He responded, "No. No comment."

But now the White House is performing clean-up duty, denying that Biden said what everyone, including Maui residents, heard.

"He didn't hear the question," White House deputy press secretary Olivia Dalton told the New York Times in an exclusive statement on Thursday.

"He absolutely didn't say 'no comment' in relation to Maui. And in fact, he had already spoken to the nation about Maui at that point, in addition to being in daily contact with senior staff, FEMA, and state officials as he marshaled a whole-of-government response to the fires," she added.

But what does the video show?

It's impossible to disprove with certainty the White House's explanation, but video of the incident appears to indicate that Biden understood the question.

— (@)

The video shows that Biden was about to enter a vehicle when he realized reporters were shouting questions at him. He stopped his vehicle-entrance attempt, listened to the question — "Mr. President, any comment on the rising death toll in Maui?" — and then provided his answer in a natural response when the reporter finished speaking.

Biden's response — "No. No comment" — appears to show that he heard and understood the question because the reporter specifically asked for a "comment."

If Biden did not hear the question as the White House claimed, why wait almost two weeks to clarify?

Moreover, why provide a statement to the New York Times 11 days later, instead of providing a statement to all media outlets? The Times was certainly not the only outlet to query the White House for a response.

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

‘Empathizer-In-Chief’ Biden Offers Hawaiians Devastated By Wildfire ‘No Comment’ From His Beach Chair

The deadliest wildfire in modern U.S. history deserves more attention, not just from the media but also from the White House.