As Kamala Harris stumbled through her recent interview, the crutch of her teleprompter nowhere in sight, it was glaringly clear: without it, she becomes a human Chernobyl—a meltdown in progress. This shaky performance serves as a troubling indicator of what might come if she reaches the Presidency, pointing towards potential leadership fraught with both incompetence and deceit.

An Inherent Lack of Leadership Capability

During a rare, unscripted interview with CNN’s Dana Bash, Harris’s responses wobbled like a poorly constructed Jenga tower. Always leaning on scripted dialogues, her reliance grows concerning as she aims for the Presidency. This need for prewritten answers isn’t just a minor hiccup; it’s a red flag waving wildly, signaling her possible inability to manage the spontaneous challenges America faces. Ain’t that a bit worrying?

A Chronic Pattern of Deception

In that same sit-down, Harris’s efforts to clarify her stances on hot-button issues like fracking and border policies seemed nothing more than rehearsed echoes from past speeches. This level of dishonesty, akin to Baghdad Bob’s infamous disinformation, starkly contrasts her claimed steadfast values. Such flip-flopping, wrapped in a polished veneer of evasion, downright insults the intelligence of American voters, who deserve utter honesty from those vying for their votes.

Media’s Malfeasance in Masking the Truth

The media’s role in propping up Harris cannot be ignored. CNN’s gentle treatment, led by Bash’s failure to press harder on vague and contradictory statements, highlights a bigger issue of media bias. This isn’t just subpar journalism—it’s a participation in political theater, actively shielding favored candidates from the scrutiny they desperately need. By not challenging Harris more rigorously, CNN fails the public, depriving them of the chance to see who might truly lead them. Huh, surprised?

A Forewarning of a Fraught Future

The stakes are incredibly high this election cycle, and Harris’s reluctance to engage in more unscripted interviews is telling. Her performances, shaky at best, hint at more secretive and scripted governance that could follow. As the debates loom and Election Day approaches, it’s critical for voters to scrutinize not only what Harris says but also how she says it—teleprompter or not.

In essence, Harris’s candidacy, riddled with evasions, inconsistencies, and a troubling dependence on scripted dialogues, poses a serious risk to both the governance and integrity of the nation. The teleprompter may temporarily mask her flaws, but like radiation, the truth eventually leaks out, leaving a path of destruction. Can we really afford to ignore this?