Harris hasn’t, AFAIK opined on KJP’s Constitutional Prowess(TM), but did no doubt find her comments “brilliant” as well…
“Biden White House Attacks Supreme Court, Bizarrely Claiming Affirmative Action Is a ‘Constitutional Right’ “—-
https://legalinsurrection.com/2023/07/biden-white-house-attacks-supreme-court-bizarrely-claiming-affirmative-action-is-a-constitutional-right/
+ Bonus:
“RACIAL EMANATIONS AND PENUMBRAS?”—
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/07/racial-emanations-and-penumbras.php

Biden got a reputation for being nice and friendly because he was a gladhanding mediocrity. There is much hypocrisy in that as well. For decades, Democrats saw Republican presidents either as incompetent mediocrities or as phonies who put on an act to sell themselves and their policies — or both — yet Biden was treasured for those very characteristics. But if money weren’t the life blood of politics, hypocrisy would be.

Heh. Without blinking an eye.
Indecent Joe’s vast army of uber-abject apologists have ALL the bases covered!!
(Can anyone doubt that that’s exactly why Kamala Harris—VABUSER?—makes a habit of lambasting her staff, too!)

File under: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FOUqQt3Kg0

Would have been more of a surprise had he not needed them…

Even then, he did kind of wander off on occasion (and not just “off topic”)…
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12286065/King-Charles-entirely-comfortable-President-Biden-patting-back.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12282713/Biden-meets-King-Charles-Windsor-Castle.html

Reminding one of that famous interview:
https://legalinsurrection.com/2023/06/dont-go-anywhere-biden-wanders-off-msnbc-set-before-interview-wrapped-up/

File under: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXqWCeB8Vto

If Hillary Clinton had been elected in 2008 or 2016, would what she did really have been that different from what Obama and Biden have done or tried to do? There are fights between the Clinton, Obama, and Biden teams over who gets the top office, but the winner makes chooses appointees drawn from the same pool: appointees in previous Democrat administrations, prominent Democrat politicians and their staffers, people from think tanks, foundations, and advocacy groups.

Obama was the transition from the Bill Clinton era to the Joe Biden era. If Hillary had been elected would she have forever clung to the ideas of Bill’s era or would she have gone where the party went when neoliberalism fell out of favor?

Is anybody really pulling the strings at the top? Ideas come from advocacy groups and think tanks. They flow down to the staffers who do the real work and percolate up to the senators and department heads whose speeches and policy papers the underlings write.

Biden’s Secretary of the Army is discouraging people from military families from joining the Army. She says she doesn’t want a military caste. It’s nonsense, of course. Young people from families with a military heritage have been more willing to enlist than other young Americans (at least until now). They understand the military way of life, and probably find it easier to fit in and excel, than those without a family military background. We have no Junkers or landed aristocracy. If your family produced sargeants or captains going back to the Revolution or the Civil War, you aren’t part of a military caste that threatens “Our Democracy.” The policy is also unnecessary. Military families are telling their children and grandchildren not to enlist, because they aren’t welcome. It’s also obviously hypocritical. Does anyone really think that if the current generals have children who want military careers the regime will bar their way?

So was this part of a master plan? In a sense yes, but not entirely. The administration announces a theme — “Diversity, Inclusion, Equity” or “Zero Carbon” — then the underlings scramble to find ways to implement the policy. A more diverse and inclusive military means fewer straight White men (and fewer White Southerners), but the details, the ways and means, get worked out at lower levels. The party base is the same whoever is elected president, so the themes are always the same whoever is in the White House.

Women. There are millions of women who will wet their panties in anticipation of voting for that hairgelled fop. He could say that he eats puppies and will sign an executive order mandating puppy consumption, and the reaction would be “he’s so handsome and confident!”

Once RFK wins a primary or two, Newsom will be implored to run. He will choose a POC running mate and beat Trump, or lose to DeSantis.

“Better to rule in hell, than serve in heaven”

No matter how sincerely idealistic an individual on the left may claim to be, their immunity to facts and reason puts the lie to their claim of altruistic motivations. For if they truly were motivated by altruism, they would give real consideration to whether the methods they embrace were effective in achieving their claimed aims. That when implemented, they cavalierly dismiss the practical results of their ‘solutions’ reveals that their real motivation is either the egotism of virtue signaling or simply the lust for power and control.

What the two share is that they want people to be controlled. The virtue signalers gratefully embrace the rationalization that it’s for the greater good. While those that lust for power need no such excuses.