There’s no denying that debates can be fraught with tension, chaos, and plenty of soundbites. However, when it comes to the recent debate featuring Kamala Harris, it seems the old saying about lies having short legs might just be ring true. Mark Levin, the ever-passionate and sharp-tongued host of “Life, Liberty & Levin,” offered an extensive critique post-debate that’s worth dissecting. It appears that for Harris, running on her record just isn’t an option, and that leaves a lot to unpack for the American public.

First off, the notion that Kamala Harris can effectively campaign without discussing her past policies raises eyebrows. Levin vehemently asserts that Harris lacks the ability to run on her record because, let’s face it—there’s not much to brag about. Citing everything from the economy to immigration, he argues that her track record reveals a series of missteps more than accomplishments. This paints a picture of a candidate who seems to favor a smoke-and-mirrors approach rather than transparent policy discussions. The question becomes, when faced with a critical audience, how do voters feel about a candidate who doesn’t want to reveal her hand?

Delving deeper into Levin’s critique, he stresses that Harris’ portrayal as a victorious debate participant is a construct of the media’s making. He insists that for undecided voters, the real takeaway from the debate is a lack of clarity on where Harris stands. She may have talked a big game about the future (who wouldn’t wish for a brighter tomorrow?) but what do her actions suggest about her decision-making abilities? With Trump offering clarity on his positions—be it on law and order or economic recovery—one has to wonder if Harris’ vague statements on the future are enough to convince the electorate.

This brings us to the curious phenomenon Levin dubbed “the rope-a-dope campaign.” Essentially, he posits that Harris’ strategy is one of evasion and distraction, particularly when the media plays along as her somewhat biased cheerleaders. While Trump pledges to bolster traditional American values, Harris appears to be aiming for a different agenda altogether, one Levin contends aligns closely with radical ideologies. It’s almost as if Harris is playing a game of hide-and-seek with the truth, leaving many to question her authenticity and intentions.

Moreover, Levin challenges the idea that Harris can deliver on promises about economic improvement, tax cuts, or border security when those key areas are actually blemished by her past decisions. He argues that her inability to effectively address her previous failures only perpetuates the uncertainty surrounding her candidacy. Voters are urged to think critically—if a candidate can’t own up to their record, what assurance do they have that future actions will be any different?

Finally, Levin’s commentary invokes a broader conversation about what the American people want. Do they desire a leader who shies away from difficult truths and hides behind platitudes? Or is there a longing for steadfastness, where a candidate is willing to face their past, own their missteps, and engage earnestly with the electorate? Levin doesn’t just challenge Harris; he poses an important question of resonance for all Americans: What type of leadership do we truly want going forward?

In the chase for credibility and trust, Levin’s critique of Kamala Harris encapsulates important driving forces in American politics. While the media may spin their narrative, the barometer of public opinion remains anchored in the ability to communicate clearly, take responsibility, and embody what the future of America could look like. As voters prepare for what lies ahead, understanding the past may just be the key to unlocking a better path forward.