Vice President Kamala Harris has been ridiculed for being a less-than-qualified presidential candidate and selected as President Joe Biden’s running mate mainly because of her race. This primarily has to do with the fact that in 2020, Biden and Democrats touted that they would select a running mate who was a black woman, specifically because she was a black woman. That created a phenomenon in which people believed that Harris was largely unintelligent and that her only qualifications were her race and gender.

Given her professional resume and academic background, this is generally an unfair assessment. Nevertheless, the vice president regularly says things that reinforce this reputation, something former President Donald Trump highlighted at one of his recent rallies. Yet, perhaps the most glaring incident of Harris’s questionable intelligence happened a few days ago when the Democratic appointee for president finally announced an economic policy she would pursue as president: passing a federal ban on “price gauging.”

Yes, you read that correctly. The vice president of the United States, who has been celebrated as the first black woman to hold the office, a former California attorney general and senator, announced before a crowd that she wanted to ban “price gauging.” She meant to say “price gouging” but instead made a hilarious mistake and used “price gauging.” “Gauging” and “gouging” mean two different things. It was a hilarious misuse of words by the vice president that she never corrected.

It’s the kind of verbal slip-up we’ve grown accustomed to being made by a declining Biden, not a supposedly intelligent and mentally sharp Harris. This error was largely overlooked by many in the legacy media. It’s hard to find any outlet that reported or acknowledged the blunder. A quick search for “Kamala Harris price gauging” returns articles about Harris’s policy proposal with the correct word, “gouging,” in its headlines. None use the word “gauging” that Harris used.

For example, here’s an article posted on CNBC, specifically mentioning “corporate price-gouging” in the headline. The Washington Post reported on Harris’s policy proposal but also used “price gouging” in the headline. Forbes, BBC, the New York Times, the Associated Press, CNN, and ABCNews, among many others, also used this phrase.

Perhaps all these publications had benevolent intentions and just corrected a malapropism from the Democratic appointee. Or, perhaps they are covering up for Harris and helping her campaign by hiding the truth and not portraying her as a fool to the public. It’s hard to believe these same outlets would extend the same courtesy to Trump if he made such a mistake.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The whole ordeal is quite telling about the political landscape in the country. One candidate has been appointed by the Democratic National Committee and anointed by the legacy media. A legitimate argument could be made that she has absolutely no idea what she is doing in her current job or the job of president of the United States.

Then, there is the legacy media, a supposed objective group of journalists entrusted with the responsibility of reporting the truth to the people in the country. Yet, given the lack of news coverage Harris’s blunder received, it raises numerous questions of media fairness and accuracy. Someone should “gauge” the accuracy — and lack of fairness and objectivity — in their reports.