Those Voting for Harris/Walz Really Believe Trump is Anathema

It’s amazing the mental gymnastics Harris/Walz voters will go through to justify their vote. Here’s a recent sample exchange:

Me (noting Harris/Walz bumper sticker on golf partner’s car): Well, I guess we’d better not discuss politics, haha.

Him: You want to know why I support Harris and Walz? 

Me: Sure, ‘cause you hate Trump, right?

Him: No, that’s not it. He’s going insane, can’t you tell? Listen to what he’s saying, he’s totally losing it. You watch, he may not make it to the election without going crazy and calling people (expletive deleted).

Me: OK, so you’re supporting Walz who keeps telling people (us) to mind our own d**n business on things like abortion and sex changes for minors, but he sure didn’t have a problem having people tattle on each other during COVID, did he?

Him: Look, the golf course is not the place to talk about politics.

Me (to myself): Typical deflection of a progressive. Won’t get trapped into defending the indefensible. (Side note: If anyone wants to accuse me of the same thing for changing the subject to Walz, all I can say is that there was clearly no way this guy was going to budge from his opinion that Trump belongs on the funny farm).

Harris’ campaign is like a modern TV show – brazenness in action. Apparently, the public is so used to brazen lying, whether on a sitcom or coming from a politician, that they’re no longer outraged about it. And since Trump says so many things that are exaggerations or pure hyperbole, it’s easy for voters to say that he’s no better than Harris when it comes to their shaky relationship with the truth. Playing the moral equivalency game is easy when one’s north star in life is moral relativism. And as always, we have the legacy media to blame for protecting Democrats as they brazenly lie their way out of any situation and get away with it.

To reach the still-undecided voters, J.D. Vance needed to keep such thoughts in mind in his debate preparation, knowing that he’d be facing off against three people, not just the incompetent Democrat candidate. Overall, he performed admirably and actually had Walz on the defensive a few times, most especially on the Obamacare individual mandate. Even the progressive-leaning networks had Vance winning, although by a slim 51-49 margin according to their post-debate polling. That closeness in the numbers allowed them to call it a draw, and to the MSNBC fanatics that will mean that Walz won. When Walz declared “I’m a knucklehead,” when challenged about his whereabouts during the Tiananmen Square massacre, to me that was the most refreshingly honest remark by a Democrat since Joe Lieberman was one, and that’s been a while. Walz, if nothing else, showed a human side that his erstwhile sidekick simply cannot do.

The only time that Vance dropped the ball was during the inevitable grilling about January 6^th, which has replaced Watergate as the all-time go-to for Dems wanting to paint all Republicans as fanatical and/or crooked insurrectionists. In short, Republicans are expected to denounce the events of January 6^th just like the Democrats do, and any variation from this is viewed as a defense of Donald Trump, which is anathema to Dems and their legacy media partners.

Vance might have noted that at the very least, Vice President Mike Pence could have pointedly stated during that infamous day that at least two states important to the end result (Pennsylvania and Wisconsin) used unconstitutional voting procedures since those procedures were approved by a court, not by the state legislatures as their constitutions require. Pence could have then said that, in the spirit of country first, he was going ahead with the certification to officially declare Joe Biden the winner despite these anomalies, while issuing a warning to the states that this matter would need to be cleaned up prior to the next election. In my opinion, Pence’s rubber-stamping of the election results without pointing out the anomalies was a slap in the face to peaceful Trump supporters, which were the vast majority. 

As I’ve stated before, the time for Trump to have made some noise about this issue was well before the election when the state court decisions came down. Post-election and especially by January 6^th, it was too late. And because Trump failed to take action before the election, only challenging this and several other things in the aftermath, he left his party with a poor hand to play when trying to explain/justify the apparently inexplicable/unjustifiable nature of his post-election behavior. But if anyone could have done it, Vance could have. He fell back on the indisputable fact that Trump did not try to stand in the way of the peaceful transfer of power on January 20, 2021. Weak, but better than nothing, while demonstrating that Trump, for all of his bluster, is not the maniac many Harris supporters think he is.