02-18-2019 09:36:51 AM -0800
02-18-2019 07:35:39 AM -0800
02-17-2019 12:39:26 PM -0800
02-17-2019 08:18:34 AM -0800
02-15-2019 01:00:05 PM -0800
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.
PJ Media encourages you to read our updated PRIVACY POLICY and COOKIE POLICY.

What I Said about Kamala Harris Was an Understatement

In the future, Andy Warhol predicted, everyone would be famous for fifteen minutes.  In this era of the Social Media Cultural Revolution, we can add everyone will also be denounced -- have a figurative dunce cap on his or her head -- for at least those fifteen minutes, probably a good deal longer, and possibly for life.

I've had my share of brushes with this state of affairs, but my most recent -- not much, as these things go, but illustrative of the times in which we live-- occurred a couple of days ago.  I had written an article for this site ("Howard Schultz Could Actually Win the Presidency") that was linked by Drudge and got a certain amount of play, enough so Schultz himself must have read it.  He tweeted as follows.

I was impressed, especially since I had criticized Schultz's actions over the bathroom issue, and thanked him.

But don't look for the Starbucks founder's tweet online because the presidential candidate-in-waiting deleted it within hours.  The ever-present Twitter posse had already decided that I--and by extension Schultz for acknowledging me--had committed a cardinal sin.  In modern parlance, I threw shade on two women in the most sexist manner in my column,  calling Kamala Harris "shrill" (also a "quasi-socialist," but that didn't seem to stick in as many craws) and disparaging Sen Elizabeth Warren  as "Fauxcohontas." (I am about the twelfth millionth to have done that.)

Schultz, clearly panicked for his nascent campaign, hit the delete button. I was, in the potential candidate's view, playing "revenge politics" -- at least that's what he implied when interviewed about my article by CNN's Anderson Cooper. (I was frankly astonished this exceptionally minor kerfuffle merited such attention, but, as they say, all publicity is good publicity. On the other hand, the Dems want Schultz out -- now! -- by any means necessary.)  The businessman also asserted--Cooper appeared to be helping him out here-- that he had not noticed the aspersions in my "thoughtful analysis."  I'm skeptical about that, but I'll leave it to the reader to decide.

Okay, so am I really a sexist pig á la Harvey Weinstein and will I be excommunicated by Hollywood for that? Well, I was already excommunicated by them on political grounds.  Can you be excommunicated twice?

But more seriously, my evaluation of Harris was, to me, an understatement.  Calling her "shrill" wasn't sexist in my view.  It could almost be called chivalrous (I know -- that's sexist now) or euphemistic compared to what I really think of her.  And it has nothing to do with her sex and everything to do with her behavior and politics.  The Kavanaugh hearings revealed who she is -- a vindictive, hypocritical opportunist and past master of the politics of personal destruction. This is a woman who, despite her having been district attorney of San Francisco, would have indeed sunk Judge Kavanaugh "by any means necessary" without the slightest need for evidence or the rule of law.  Even more, she did her best to destroy him for unproven allegations while his daughters were sitting there --how feminist!  This behavior came from a woman whose ambitious affair with the married Willie Brown (and Brown's subsequent avowal he was used politically) is known to anyone paying attention. "Shrill"?  Yes, it was euphemism.  And how. If you want to call me a sexist, go ahead.  Just don't get me started on Senator Blumenthal. He's worse (though less dangerous at the moment). Then I'll be a misandrist too.