Political analyst Matthew Dowd lost his contributor role at MSNBC because of comments he made about Charlie Kirk after the young right-wing activist was murdered Wednesday.

Shortly after Kirk was shot to death while speaking on stage at Utah Valley State University, Dowd told MSNBC anchor Katy Tur that “hateful thoughts lead to hateful words which then lead to hateful actions.”

The angry reaction on social media was immediate after Dowd’s comments suggested that Kirk’s history of incendiary remarks led to the shooting.

MSNBC President Rebecca Kutler issued an apology Wednesday night.

“During our breaking news coverage of the shooting of Charlie Kirk, Matthew Dowd made comments that were inappropriate, insensitive, and unacceptable,” Kutler said in a statement. “There is no place for violence in America, political or otherwise.”

The network then severed ties with Dowd, according to a person briefed on the decision who was not authorized to comment.

“My thoughts and prayers are with the family and friends of Charlie Kirk,” Dowd later wrote on his Bluesky account. “I was asked a question on the environment we are in. I apologize for my tone and words. Let me be clear, I in no way intended for my comments to blame Kirk for this horrendous attack.”

Dowd is a political consultant who served as the chief strategist for George W. Bush’s successful 2004 presidential reelection campaign. Dowd broke away from the Republican party due to his unhappiness with Bush’s handling of the Iraq war.

Dowd previously served as a political analyst for ABC News.

It was reckless to allow former President Joe Biden to run for re-election last year, former Vice President Kamala Harris admitted in her new book, “107 Days.”

This time last year, Harris was in the thick of her short-lived presidential campaign. With some distance from Washington, D.C., and in retrospect, Harris doesn’t hold back in the first preview of her new book that is set to hit shelves later this month. 

“‘It’s Joe and Jill’s decision.’ We all said that, like a mantra, as if we’d all been hypnotized. Was it grace, or was it recklessness? In retrospect, I think it was recklessness. The stakes were simply too high. This wasn’t a choice that should have been left to an individual’s ego, an individual’s ambition. It should have been more than a personal decision,” Harris said in the excerpt released by The Atlantic on Wednesday morning. 

While Harris publicly defended Biden throughout his presidency, in the first excerpt of Harris’ highly anticipated account of the shortest presidential campaign in history, the former vice president described how she was often scapegoated by the Biden administration. And for the first time, she admitted that, “perhaps,” she should have told Biden to “consider not running.”

HARRIS ADMITS BIDEN ‘GOT TIRED,’ DENIES ‘CONSPIRACY’ TO HIDE MENTAL DECLINE

During her brief presidential campaign, Harris often walked a fine line in trying to defend Biden, for whom she remained his vice president, while also differentiating herself from his unflattering record. 

KAMALA HARRIS ADMITS THERE ARE THINGS SHE WOULD’VE DONE DIFFERENTLY IN 2024, FAILS TO ELABORATE

“There is not a thing that comes to mind,” Harris infamously said on “The View,” when asked what she would have done differently than Biden. The clip was an instant attack ad for Republican candidates up and down the ballot to pit Biden’s shortcomings on Harris. 

Harris later told Fox News’ Bret Baier that her presidency would “not be a continuation of Joe Biden’s presidency,” as she sought to distance herself from Biden’s stances on the economy and the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza. 

“And of all the people in the White House, I was in the worst position to make the case that he should drop out,” Harris said in the “107 Days” excerpt. “I knew it would come off to him as incredibly self-serving if I advised him not to run. He would see it as naked ambition, perhaps as poisonous disloyalty, even if my only message was: Don’t let the other guy win.”

Vice President Kamala Harris gives remarks alongside President Joe Biden on Aug. 15, 2024, in Largo, Maryland.  (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Harris said she rationalized her decision to stay quiet by telling herself, “the American people had chosen him before in the same matchup,” and maybe he was “right to believe” he could defeat President Donald Trump again. 

“I don’t believe it was incapacity. If I believed that, I would have said so. As loyal as I am to President Biden, I am more loyal to my country,” Harris said in the book.

But as described in “Original Sin,” one of several books this year to pull back the curtain on the reality of the Biden administration, loyalty to Biden was wielded as a weapon in the White House. 

“Because I’d gone after him over busing in the 2019 primary debate, I came into the White House with what we lawyers call a ‘rebuttable presumption.’ I had to prove my loyalty, time and time again,” Harris said in the book. 

Former Vice President Kamala Harris is seen as a guest on ‘The Late Show with Stephen Colbert’ on July 31, 2025. (Scott Kowalchyk/CBS via Getty Images)

In the excerpt, Harris goes on to describe how the “White House rarely pushed back,” when she was criticized for her “gaffes” or when “Republicans mischaracterized my role as ‘border czar.’”

Harris explained how she often had to prove her loyalty to Biden, yet Biden’s inner circle “seemed glad” to let her dominate headlines. 

“Their thinking was zero-sum: If she’s shining, he’s dimmed. None of them grasped that if I did well, he did well. That, given the concerns about his age, my visible success as his vice president was vital. It would serve as a testament to his judgment in choosing me and reassurance that if something happened, the country was in good hands. My success was important for him,” the former vice president argued in the “107 Days” excerpt. 

“His team didn’t get it,” Harris said. 

Fox News Digital reached out to Biden’s office for comment but did not immediately hear back. 

When Kamala Harris was contemplating a run for California governor, one of her supposed considerations was the security detail that attends the state’s chief executive.

The services of a life-preserving, ego-boosting retinue of intimidating protectors — picture dark glasses, earpiece, stern visage — were cited by more than one Harris associate, past and present, as a factor in her deliberations. These were not Trumpers or Harris haters looking to impugn or embarrass the former vice president.

According to one of those associates, Harris has been accompanied nonstop by an official driver and person with a gun since 2003, when she was elected San Francisco district attorney. One could easily grow accustomed to that level of comfort and status, not to mention the pleasure of never having to personally navigate the 101 or 405 freeways at rush hour.

That is, of course, a perfectly terrible and selfish reason to run for governor, if ever it was a part of Harris’ thinking. To her credit, the reason she chose to not run was a very good one: Harris simply “didn’t feel called” to pursue the job, in the words of one political advisor.

Now, however, the matter of Harris’ personal protection has become a topic of heated discussion and debate, which is hardly surprising in an age when everything has become politicized, including “and” and “the.”

There is plenty of bad faith to go around.

Last month, President Trump abruptly revoked Harris’ Secret Service protection. The security arrangement for vice presidents typically lasts for six months after they leave office, allowing them to quietly fade into ever greater obscurity. But before vacating the White House, President Biden signed an executive order extending protection for Harris for an additional year. (Former presidents are guarded by Secret Service details for life.)

As the first female, first Black and first Asian American vice president, Harris faced, as they say in the protective-service business, an elevated threat level while serving in the post. In the 230-odd days since Harris left office, there is no reason to believe racism and misogyny, not to mention wild-eyed partisan hatred, have suddenly abated in this great land of ours.

And there remain no small number of people crazy enough to violently act on those impulses.

The president could have been gracious and extended Harris’ protection. But expecting grace out of Trump is like counting on a starving Doberman to show restraint when presented a bloody T-bone steak.

“This is another act of revenge following a long list of political retaliation in the form of firings, the revoking of security clearances and more,” Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass angrily declared.

True.

Though Bass omitted the bit about six months being standard operating procedure, which would have at least offered some context. It wasn’t as though Harris was being treated differently than past vice presidents.

Gov. Gavin Newsom quickly stepped into the breach, providing Harris protection by the California Highway Patrol. Soon after, The Times’ Richard Winton broke the news that Los Angeles Police Department officers meant to be fighting crime in hard-hit areas of the city were instead providing security for Harris as a supplement to the CHP.

Not a great look. Or the best use of police resources.

Thus followed news that officers had been pulled off Harris’ security detail after internal criticism; supposedly the LAPD’s involvement had always been intended as a stopgap measure.

All well and good, until the conservative-leaning Los Angeles Police Protective League, the union representing rank-and-file officers, saw fit to issue a gratuitously snarky statement condemning the hasty arrangement. Its board of directors described Harris as “a failed presidential candidate who also happens to be a multi-millionaire, with multiple homes … who can easily afford to pay for her own security.”

As if Harris’ 2024 defeat — she lost the popular vote to Trump by a scant 1.5%, it might be noted — was somehow relevant.

To be certain, Harris and her husband, attorney Doug Emhoff, won’t miss any hot meals as they shelter in their 3,500-square-foot Brentwood home. (The one house they own.) But they’re not stupid-rich either.

One person in the private-security business told Winton that a certain household name pays him $1,000 a day for a 12-hour shift. That can quickly add up and put a noticeable dent in your bank account, assuming your name isn’t Elon or Taylor or Zuckerberg or Bezos.

Setting aside partisanship — if that’s still possible — and speaking bluntly, there’s something to be said for ensuring Harris doesn’t die a violent death at the hands of some crazed assailant.

The CHP’s Dignitary Protection Section is charged with guarding all eight of California’s constitutional officers — we’re talking folks such as the insurance commissioner and state controller — as well as the first lady and other elected officials, as warranted. The statutory authority also extends to former constitutional officers, which would include Harris, who served six years as state attorney general.

Surely there’s room in California’s $321-billion budget to make sure nothing terrible happens to one of the state’s most prominent and credentialed citizens. It doesn’t have to be an open-ended, lifetime commitment to Harris’ protection, but an arrangement that could be periodically reviewed, as time passes and potential danger wanes.

Serving in elected office can be rough, especially in these incendiary times. The price shouldn’t include having to spend the rest of your life looking nervously over your shoulder.

Or draining your life savings, so you don’t have to.