Yesterday, Scientific American said Kamala Harris will bring a 'lifelong familiarity' with science to the White House. Why? Because her dad was a cancer researcher.

This is an idiotic premise, that makes about as much sense as saying this writer will balance the budget because her dad was an accountant.

The Economist -- not to be outdone -- says Kamala's rambling statements are actually because of her father, too.

No, seriously:

Republicans who have mocked Kamala Harris for word-salad speeches will find precedent in her father’s writing. The Marxist economist’s writings are sprinkled with obscurantist theorising https://t.co/LacdePCLtM 👇

— The Economist (@TheEconomist) July 27, 2024

They write:

In a video clip that has gone viral recently, Kamala Harris quotes her mother asking her whether she thought she had just fallen out of a coconut tree. The probable Democratic nominee for president breaks into a laugh at the turn of phrase before explaining, somewhat philosophically, the message of the story: “you exist in the context of all in which you live and what came before you.” For Ms Harris some of that context is esoteric economic theory. Her father, Donald, is an 85-year-old, Jamaican-born economist, formerly a professor at Stanford University.

Refreshing for them to acknowledge her father was also a Marxist, cause the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

Recommended

Advertisement

But it's also interesting that 1) they'd attribute Kamala's inability to speak publicly to her father and 2) think this would excuse the rambling word salads she's been recorded spouting.

She doesn't come off as 'esoteric', she comes off as a middle schooler who -- when called to give an oral book report to the class -- didn't finish the assigned reading.

Not surprising, considering her history.

Back in 2021 (and we wonder how soon these articles will get scrubbed), staffers told The Washington Post:

Staffers who worked for Harris before she was vice president said one consistent problem was that Harris would refuse to wade into briefing materials prepared by staff members, then berate employees when she appeared unprepared.

“It’s clear that you’re not working with somebody who is willing to do the prep and the work,” one former staffer said. “With Kamala you have to put up with a constant amount of soul-destroying criticism and also her own lack of confidence. So you’re constantly sort of propping up a bully and it’s not really clear why.”

So to see the media now run cover for Harris is a sight to behold.

He's a commie. No wonder you cover for him pic.twitter.com/9uDyn7a6qr

— BIGHAMP🐹 (@hampsterofx) July 27, 2024

Not surprising at all.

It's why they cover for Kamala, too.

"Obscurantist." You could have just said "lying communist."

— Big Honkey (@HonkeyMFZ) July 27, 2024

Agreed.

Marxist. All you need to know.

— JFZB (@JaBayCO) July 27, 2024

Speaks volumes, no?

The *Economist* does nothing to back up its claim that Harris's work is filled with obscurantist theorizing. It's a cheap shot that needs to he shown. https://t.co/T8HX4UrkO0

— TakingHayekSeriously (@FriedrichHayek) July 27, 2024

They don't need evidence. This is about spinning for Kamala, nothing more.

They know most people won't read past the headline.

She was raised by two Marxists. https://t.co/lXs1lPJx1W

— James Hayes (@jamesfhayes) July 27, 2024

And there's zero reason to believe she's significantly different from them, policy-wise.