Recent on CBS’ ‘The Late Show With Stephen Colbert’, Vice President Kamala Harris sat comfortably in an evidently contrived conversation with host Stephen Colbert. It was apparent that she and the host were ready to engage in a parade of anti-Trump rhetoric, the kind that has become all too familiar to viewers across the nation. The show, presented to the audience in New York City, had Harris once again, taking on the mantle of judge and jury.
Harris allowed herself to play along with Colbert’s query about some supposed revelations from the yet-to-be-released book. It insinuates that former President Donald Trump was on the horn with Russian president Vladimir Putin post-presidency, allegedly up to seven times. Harris’s scornful dismissive reply, ‘Yeah, so I heard about it today. I haven’t read it,’ left much to be desired.
She went on with a bald-faced premise that Trump is a dictator fantasist. Skeptical eyes may find her point ignoble. She stated, looking smug, ‘Donald Trump – he openly admires dictators and authoritarians. He has said he wants to be a dictator on day one if he were elected again as president.’ These blanket statements attempted to paint Trump with a broad stroke.
Her assertions continued, laying bare her biases once again, ‘He gets played by these guys. He admires so-called strongmen and he gets played because they flatter him or offer him favor.’ Clearly, inserting conjecture about personabilities of world leaders, in a petty attempt to ridicule the former president.
With an air of feigned righteousness that belied her obvious political agenda, Harris proclaimed, ‘The commander-in-chief of the United States of America must stand strong and defend the principles we hold dear. We should stand with our allies.’ The irony of her statement was palpable as it seems to be oblivious to the conduct and actions of the current administration she is a part of.
‘We should strengthen the alliances that we have, such as Nato, which is the strongest military alliance the world has ever seen. We must stand with our friend Ukraine where Russia is attempting to change borders by force,’ she prattled on. How little self-awareness she has when comparing her call for strong alliances to the demonstrably weak foreign relations actions under the Biden Administration.
Harris tried to highlight her recent campaigning, arrogantly stating, ‘People are exhausted by that old tired playbook of Donald Trump’s… Folks are ready to turn the page.’ Overconfidence or a desperate attempt to promulgate a narrative? The answer remains to be seen.
Harris, in another expression of sanctimonious superiority, pontificated to Colbert about Trump losing the 2020 election, everything was lost: jobs, manufacturing, automotive plants and then the election. But astonishingly she misses the spiraling economy under the Biden administration.
In a demeaning attempt at humor, she shared ‘What does that make you? A loser. This is what somebody at my rallies said. I thought it was funny.’ An unseemly jest reflects ironically on the speaker, perhaps unsubstantiated gloating would be a more suitable approach.
When Colbert simply responded to her by echoing, ‘It’s accurate. It’s accurate,’ it became clear that the conversation was strategically orchestrated, revealing, on late-night television, the not so subtle hue of bias.
The entire interview seemed more directed at disparaging Trump and less about the country’s progress, which one might expect from a sitting Vice President. diverting the conversation from the shortcomings of their administration by discrediting predecessors is a sadly common political maneuver.
Both Harris and Colbert delivered their statements as if they were the ultimate authority on matters concerning politics, giving a performance that rings hollow when contrasted with the reality the American public faces daily.
In the end, the audience bore witness to a typical late-night show political segment – unflattering opinions ingeniously dressed up as ‘hard-hitting’ interviews, one focused more on scorning political rivals than exploring substantive policy discussions.