Here you can listen to our WELT podcasts
In order to display embedded content, your revocable consent to the transmission and processing of personal data is necessary, since the providers of the embedded content as third-party providers require this consent [In diesem Zusammenhang können auch Nutzungsprofile (u.a. auf Basis von Cookie-IDs) gebildet und angereichert werden, auch außerhalb des EWR]. By setting the switch to “on”, you agree to this (revocable at any time). This also includes your consent to the transfer of certain personal data to third countries, including the USA, in accordance with Art. 49 (1) (a) GDPR. You can find more information about this at . You can revoke your consent at any time using the switch and via privacy at the bottom of the page.
In her first major decision as a presidential candidate, Kamala Harris revealed a lack of attitude and strategic ability. When she chose Tim Walz over Josh Shapiro as her vice-presidential candidate, the anti-alcoholic Donald Trump must have enjoyed a can of his favorite drink, Diet Coke. Shapiro would have been a much more unpleasant opponent for Trump than Walz.
As governor of Pennsylvania, Shapiro would have used his home advantage to improve Harris’ chances of winning the important swing state and its 19 electoral votes. Tim Walz, on the other hand, as governor of Minnesota, only brings with him one state with ten electoral votes, which has been firmly in the hands of the Democrats in presidential elections since 1976.
Josh Shapiro is not only more dynamic, he is also better known than Walz. Seven out of ten Americans say they know very little about Walz and therefore cannot judge him. So why did Harris choose Walz? At first glance, he seems like someone who could poach from Trump’s classic voting clientele: white men in the Midwest.
Walz is considered down-to-earth, comes from a village and joined the National Guard at the age of 17. He did not pursue a career based on the motto “delivery room, lecture hall, plenary hall”, but worked for many years as a teacher before entering politics. He speaks the language of ordinary people. Walz is a passionate hunter. He has already declared that he can guarantee that he shoots pheasants better than Trump’s running mate JD Vance.
Read also
But under the hunting suit lies a politician whom Trump will attack as woke and left-wing radical. As governor, Walz legalized cannabis and decreed by law that free tampons must be made available in boys’ bathrooms in schools to ensure access for transgender students. For this, Republicans are now mocking him as “Tampon Tim.”
Team Trump will also happily exploit the fact that Walz made it possible for illegal immigrants to get a driver’s license and that he raised taxes. So, despite all the media hype about Harris on both sides of the Atlantic, we should take a closer look at why she chose the most left-wing candidate for vice-president – and not the comparatively moderate governor of Pennsylvania.
Smear campaign against Shapiro
Josh Shapiro is Jewish and a supporter of Israel. He strongly condemned the protests on American universities after October 7, which often resulted in open hatred of Jews. He rightly said that the demonstrators should be treated the same as people who wear Ku Klux Klan clothing. This drew the ire of many so-called “progressives” in the Democratic Party.
When Shapiro was considered for Harris’s running mate, a disgusting smear campaign began. Shapiro was defamed as “Genocide Josh.” An article he had written for a student newspaper when he was 20 was dug out. In it, he had questioned the Palestinians’ desire for peace. Although Shapiro has long since distanced himself from the article, petitions circulated on the Internet. In them, Harris, whose husband is himself Jewish, was called upon not to make Shapiro her running mate.
Read also
It is frightening that this pressure probably influenced Harris in her personnel decision. “These progressives didn’t want a Jew,” stated Democratic Congressman Jared Moskowitz. His anti-Israel colleagues Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, on the other hand, celebrated Shapiro’s ouster on social media.
There was also great jubilation among Palestinian lobby organizations in the USA. “The decision for Walz and against Shapiro cannot be viewed in isolation from the tailwind that the Palestinian movement in the USA is currently enjoying,” explained Ahmad Abuznaid, director of the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights. Harris was also apparently afraid of pro-Palestinian protests that could disrupt her coronation party convention in Chicago.
Instead of identifying and fighting the problem of anti-Semitism in her party, Harris caved in to the radical forces. She weighed up the risk of losing a group of voters critical of Israel and partly anti-Semitic against the chance of increasing her chances of success in Pennsylvania, which could be decisive in the election.
Here you will find content from third parties
In order to display embedded content, your revocable consent to the transmission and processing of personal data is necessary, since the providers of the embedded content as third-party providers require this consent [In diesem Zusammenhang können auch Nutzungsprofile (u.a. auf Basis von Cookie-IDs) gebildet und angereichert werden, auch außerhalb des EWR]. By setting the switch to “on”, you agree to this (revocable at any time). This also includes your consent to the transfer of certain personal data to third countries, including the USA, in accordance with Art. 49 (1) (a) GDPR. You can find more information about this at . You can revoke your consent at any time using the switch and via privacy at the bottom of the page.
The result is worrying. It raises the fundamental question of whether Harris, as president, would stand firmly by the only democracy in the Middle East. This uncertainty could strengthen Iran and its allies – at a time when they are more aggressive than ever before. Harris’s weak stance is dangerous for Israel, the entire West and therefore also for Germany.
