admin
Stephen Miller wasted no time reminding Americans why they saw through Kamala Harris long before the ballots were cast, calling her performance “horrendously incompetent” and arguing that the administration effectively used her as a figurehead while real power lied elsewhere. His appearance on The Ingraham Angle laid bare what conservatives have long suspected: the Democratic machine packaged a hollow personality and expected voters not to notice. Miller’s blunt assessment wasn’t theater — it was confirmation that the country rejected the same tired, scripted leadership that has driven us into crisis.
Harris’s new memoir, 107 Days, only reinforces that narrative by admitting what the public already felt — she lost the 2024 race and struggled to explain why she was the candidate put forward with so little preparation time. The book recounts raw behind-the-scenes moments, including her shock at Tim Walz’s stumbling debate performance that left her whispering in disbelief, “What is happening?” This is the aftermath of a rushed, insider-driven coronation that the American people rightly punished at the ballot box.
Conservatives weren’t surprised when Miller pointed out that Harris often offered empty rhetoric instead of clear policy and leadership, and that the DNC’s decision-making exposed the party’s desperation. Whether you call it a “pantsuit” presidency or an exercise in retail political theater, the result is the same: voters wanted competence and got spectacle. Miller’s indictment — that Harris had “no ability to do anything useful whatsoever” — reads less like partisan sniping and more like an accurate post-mortem from someone who watched the collapse up close.
The Walz episode is emblematic: a running mate who couldn’t seize crucial moments, paired with a candidate who lacked the time and clarity to convert sympathy into votes. Harris’s own pages make clear the campaign was a hurried scramble after Joe Biden’s withdrawal, and the resulting chaos played directly into Republican narratives about Democratic incompetence. Americans saw an unraveling ticket on the debate stage and in policy failures that cost jobs, security, and trust — and they voted accordingly.
Miller also hammered home the consequence of the administration’s priorities: putting symbolism and optics above border security and common-sense governance turned institutions into tools for political theater. His critique that policies were hollowed out by performative leadership resonates with families facing real-world costs from open-border chaos, inflation, and eroded rule of law. This isn’t just about one election loss — it’s a warning that the left’s model of celebrity governance produces national weakness, not strength.
Hardworking Americans deserve leaders who solve problems, not deliver press conferences and memoir tours after the fact. Stephen Miller’s fierce, unvarnished critique is a reminder that accountability matters and that voters will keep choosing competence over hollow platitudes. If Republicans keep pushing common-sense solutions and calling out failures without apology, we’ll keep winning the argument — and the future of this country — for the people who actually build it.
