Staff Reports
Vice President Kamala Harris had what seemed to be a golden opportunity for her vice-presidential pick. With the Democratic primaries heating up and the general election on the horizon, she could have selected Governor Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania—a youthful 51-year-old, charming, and widely viewed as a moderate. Shapiro’s popularity in Pennsylvania could have provided a solid boost to Harris, who desperately needs the Keystone State in her corner.
Yet, instead of choosing a political dynamo who could rally support, Harris opted for Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota. At first glance, one might wonder if she had mistakenly used a ouija board instead of a political strategy. Not only is Walz a 60-year-old with a radical open-borders agenda, but he’s also infamous for presiding over the Minneapolis chaos during the George Floyd riots. This raises the inevitable question: was the decision strategic or a sign of deeper party dysfunction?
Josh Shapiro should not, under any circumstances, apologize for his views on Israel to further his career within the Democratic Party.
The level of cowardice shown here to appease some of the worst people in society is sickening. pic.twitter.com/eX50ZhlFOC
— James Spiro (@JamesSpiro) August 5, 2024
Walz’s selection sends some alarming signals about the Democratic Party’s current direction. As a man sporting a DUI history and a questionable service record, he hardly fits the mold of an ideal candidate. Instead, his track record screams liberal extremism—a reflection of a party that is increasingly at odds with the heartland values of many Americans. It’s near the point of needing a GPS to navigate through the leftist drivel that now defines Democratic leadership.
The true head-scratcher is why Harris would bypass a strong contender like Shapiro for someone like Walz. Ruins of radicalism and dreadfully aged political ideologies seem to be the order of the day, and the exclusion of Shapiro appears to be tied to a larger narrative playing out within the Democratic ranks. Since the days of Al Gore’s groundbreaking choice of Joe Lieberman as a running mate, the party has shed any semblance of inclusivity for Jews—those once considered valuable allies have now found themselves unwelcome in this progressive circus.
The underlying motivations behind such a perilous decision may be rooted in a fear of rocking the boat among the increasingly radical base. Harris may be hedging her bets against the growing antisemitism that festers on college campuses and in liberal cities. As the party veers further left, the influential voices of radicals seem to have overtaken concerns for traditional values and historical alliances. Attempting to court a base that celebrates pro-Hamas sentiments comes at the cost of sidelining candidates who refuse to compromise their identity.
With a turbulent race ahead, Harris’s reasoning for her pick leaves much to ponder. Alienating support from moderate constituents and Jewish voters does little to prepare her for the electoral battles that lie ahead. Yet, it appears that the Democrats are more focused on appeasing their loudest and most radical factions than ensuring a stable and electable ticket. The future of Harris’s campaign hangs in a precarious balance as she forges ahead with an aging radical instead of a young, compelling candidate who could actually bring crucial swing states into the fold.
