The Trump campaign is throwing mud at Kamala Harris to see what might stick. It’s all about cementing the support base. Birther redux is just a part of that. As is anti feminist rhetoric.
I know, and both sides avoid talking about real problems with Harris like her flip-flopping on big issues. I would like someone who is firmly against the death penalty and firmly in favor of gun (and police ) control and I'm not sure where she is from moment to moment.*
The Trump campaign isn't mentioning any of that. They'd rather throw out silly non-issues like her citizenship, knowing it really doesn't matter because Trump's base wont like her in any case -- because she's black and a woman.
Meanwhile the Democrats refuse to admit she might have any flaws -- because she's black and a woman.
Meanwhile the Democrats refuse to admit she might have any flaws -- because she's black and a woman.
No, Democrats refuse to admit she might have any flaws because -- in a most un-Democratic spirit -- we are refusing to wage war on ourselves instead of on Donald Trump.
Emphasizing the flip-flops wouldn't likely help the Trump campaign. Their message is: "She's gonna defund the police and let thugs run wild", not "She can't decide whether or not to defund the police and let thugs run wild."
Meanwhile the Democrats refuse to admit she might have any flaws -- because she's black and a woman.
No, Democrats refuse to admit she might have any flaws because -- in a most un-Democratic spirit -- we are refusing to wage war on ourselves instead of on Donald Trump.
This! I doubt any Democrat thinks either Biden or Harris is a perfect candidate without flaws. There is no candidate without flaws. But you don’t win elections by pointing out the flaws in your candidates.
No, Democrats refuse to admit she might have any flaws because -- in a most un-Democratic spirit -- we are refusing to wage war on ourselves instead of on Donald Trump.
This! I doubt any Democrat thinks either Biden or Harris is a perfect candidate without flaws. There is no candidate without flaws. But you don’t win elections by pointing out the flaws in your candidates.
Of course I'm not talking about campaign ads, but news shows that should be unbiased and private conversations -- like this one.
It seems childish to me to pretend ignorance of problematic, important liberal issues, while we root for the popular girl like middle school cheer leaders and send hateful notes to anyone who doesn't like her.
Do you think some undecided person (that one) is going to read this forum and think, "Oh I better not vote for Biden because Twilight has doubts about Kamala Harris?" Even Twilight isn't going to do that.
If this was supposed to be the Kamala Fan Thread, excited gushing only, the OP should have made it clearer.
It seems childish to me to pretend ignorance of problematic, important liberal issues, while we root for the popular girl like middle school cheer leaders and send hateful notes to anyone who doesn't like her.
Are we pretending ignorance of anything here? Are we sending hateful notes to anyone who dislikes Kamala? This really seems out of left field to me. What we are doing, in the words of a former pastor of mine, is refusing to "major in minors."
There is in the card game Contract Bridge a well known principle to guide the playing of cards by the defence. It’s called the principle of restricted choice.
In the calculus of winning in 2020, and despite the perceived imperfections of her record, Kamala Harris was the best choice to make. Given the potential horror of another 4 years of Trump it would frankly be mad for Democrats not to get fully behind the Biden/Harris ticket.
And if the Trump campaign focuses on scrurrilous personal attacks to try to solidify the base, let them. Give them no ammunition which might be used to divide. If they go low, Democrats should go high.
Of course I'm not talking about campaign ads, but news shows that should be unbiased and private conversations -- like this one.
There are a lot of inherent problems with the kind of "view from nowhere" you seem to be advocating. I'm not sure there is such a thing as a completely "unbiased" view. Your views on Kamala Harris relative to the death penalty (for example) are probably going to be biased by any pre-existing intellectual position you may have on the death penalty itself.
For example, what's the "unbiased" way to discuss the right-wing talking point that Kamala Harris is a whore? In the name of being "unbiased" are we required to extend the assumption of good faith to people who have clearly demonstrated that it isn't warranted, or are we allowed to notice that this is the kind of sexist smear that would probably be deployed against any woman running for office?
Of course I'm not talking about campaign ads, but news shows that should be unbiased and private conversations -- like this one.
Must be convenient having such easily portable goalposts.
Have you considered that "the Democrats" aren't pointing out Kamala Harris' flaws because she's their chosen vice presidential candidate? I don't recall such concern about Tim Kaine's flaws four years ago, but maybe I missed it.
I like how the one blogger tries to justify the mattress slur by saying it's payback for Obama's "lipstick on a pig" remark in the '08 campaign.
As if the guy would never have dreamed of making sexually degrading remarks about a woman, but gosh, Obama said that thing about Sarah Palin in 2008, so gee whiz, he just had no choice but to reply in kind twelve years later.
(And yes, I know Obama wasn't calling Palin herself a pig, he was saying the overall GOP platform was irredeemably bad. Looking at the speech on-line, he didn't even mention Palin in that part of the oratory.)
I know, and both sides avoid talking about real problems with Harris like her flip-flopping on big issues. I would like someone who is firmly against the death penalty and firmly in favor of gun (and police ) control and I'm not sure where she is from moment to moment.*
The Trump campaign isn't mentioning any of that.
I don't see how they can. Trumpistas tend to be pro-gun and pro-death penalty. How does someone with that perspective mount an attack on Senator Harris for being insufficiently anti-gun or insufficiently anti-death penalty?
I know, and both sides avoid talking about real problems with Harris like her flip-flopping on big issues. I would like someone who is firmly against the death penalty and firmly in favor of gun (and police ) control and I'm not sure where she is from moment to moment.*
The Trump campaign isn't mentioning any of that.
I don't see how they can. Trumpistas tend to be pro-gun and pro-death penalty. How does someone with that perspective mount an attack on Senator Harris for being insufficiently anti-gun or insufficiently anti-death penalty?
By being a raging hypocrite and talking out of both sides of your mouth? It doesn't seem like that should be a problem for Trump or the GOP.
I know, and both sides avoid talking about real problems with Harris like her flip-flopping on big issues. I would like someone who is firmly against the death penalty and firmly in favor of gun (and police ) control and I'm not sure where she is from moment to moment.*
The Trump campaign isn't mentioning any of that.
I don't see how they can. Trumpistas tend to be pro-gun and pro-death penalty. How does someone with that perspective mount an attack on Senator Harris for being insufficiently anti-gun or insufficiently anti-death penalty?
The only way it could possibly work for the GOP is by spreading the criticism surreptitiously, to make it seem as if it's coming from left-wing groups.
For example...
Hire a bunch of trolls to impersonate left-wingers and plaster social media with attacks on Harris for being a redneck-sheriff type. The hope being that this convinces other left-wingers to either vote Green or stay home.
"News shows" Croesos, I said the news should be unbiased, not everyone. I'm talking about NBC, ABC, CNN etc, and they certainly haven't said anything nasty about her. I don't know where you find some of the sleaze you bring forward, but I don't call twitter comments news.
Those aren't portable goal posts but the difference between campaigning to everyone and confirmed Democrats talking among ourselves.
Every political candidate for high office that I've paid much attention to has had his/her entire life scrutinized and that included personal sexual relations. We all heard about Newt Gingrich asking his wife for a divorce while she was dying in the hospital. John McCain divorcing his crippled wife after a six month affair with his second wife. Gary Hart whose extramarital affair ended his run for president. Clinton's bimbo irruptions seemed never ending. More recently Trump's long history of affairs and marriages with mistresses and "models." It may not be nice, but the Republicans bringing up Harris's affair seems like politics as usual to me.
Don't worry. She is well loved by most people and will probably be our next president after Biden. Even though I'm not crazy about her I'm glad she's broken a barrier for black women. I still think it will be a cold day in hell before a white woman, our largest demographic will ever be president. They remain our most hated group -- see Karen thread.
"News shows" Croesos, I said the news should be unbiased, not everyone. I'm talking about NBC, ABC, CNN etc, and they certainly haven't said anything nasty about her.
Well, first you said “the Democrats,” and then you said the news media.
I’ve heard plenty of conversations in the news about the pros and cons, strengths and flaws of Harris.
You seem really hung up on this, and determined to pin it on her being black and female. I’m not at all suggesting she should be free from criticism. Far from it. But there does seem to be a fixation going on here, and a bias on your part at work.
FWIW, given the right circumstances and standards of proof, I think one could make a case that giving a job to someone with whom you are in a romantic relationship with constitutes an unacceptable act of cronyism.
But refering to the woman involved as a "mattress" goes way beyond that. I am familiar enough with the term to know that it is not a synonym for "Someone who improperly benefits from a personal connection". It's a synonym for "slut".
"News shows" Croesos, I said the news should be unbiased, not everyone. I'm talking about NBC, ABC, CNN etc, and they certainly haven't said anything nasty about her. I don't know where you find some of the sleaze you bring forward, but I don't call twitter comments news.
This is a fairly common occurrence in the wake of the announcement of a running mate. Sarah Palin received several weeks of good, almost fawning, press that only started to go sour about a month after the announcement of her being McCain's vice presidential pick. (Around the time of her disastrous "I read all the newspapers" interview with Katie Couric.)
Don't worry. She is well loved by most people and will probably be our next president after Biden.
That seems overly optimistic. If elected, Harris is probably going to end up the most hated woman in the country. If Republicans gain/retain control of one House of Congress during her hypothetical tenure as vice president expect endless conspiracy-mongering hearings. Bill Ayers secretly ghost wrote her book? Gay sex orgies? Sub-optimal server management practices? The possibilities are endless and a certain segment of the population will believe it no matter what.
"News shows" Croesos, I said the news should be unbiased, not everyone. I'm talking about NBC, ABC, CNN etc, and they certainly haven't said anything nasty about her.
Well, first you said “the Democrats,” and then you said the news media.
I’ve heard plenty of conversations in the news about the pros and cons, strengths and flaws of Harris.
You seem really hung up on this, and determined to pin it on her being black and female. I’m not at all suggesting she should be free from criticism. Far from it. But there does seem to be a fixation going on here, and a bias on your part at work.
Maybe there's just something about Harris that seems a little . . . uppity.
The weakness of the choice of Harris is that she is not the person the progressives want.
The strength of the choice of Harris is that she is not the person the progressives want.
Don't worry. She is well loved by most people and will probably be our next president after Biden. Even though I'm not crazy about her I'm glad she's broken a barrier for black women. I still think it will be a cold day in hell before a white woman, our largest demographic will ever be president. They remain our most hated group -- see Karen thread.
No, white women are not the most hated demographic. Black men probably are, but when it comes to leadership, misogyny battles with racism and probably wins. As long as the man isn't too black.
The only reason Kamala Harris is the VP pick is George Floyd. Otherwise, it would have probably been a white woman. Also, her being fairly light-skinned was definitely a factor.
I like how the one blogger tries to justify the mattress slur by saying it's payback for Obama's "lipstick on a pig" remark in the '08 campaign.
As if the guy would never have dreamed of making sexually degrading remarks about a woman, but gosh, Obama said that thing about Sarah Palin in 2008, so gee whiz, he just had no choice but to reply in kind twelve years later.
(And yes, I know Obama wasn't calling Palin herself a pig, he was saying the overall GOP platform was irredeemably bad. Looking at the speech on-line, he didn't even mention Palin in that part of the oratory.)
I recall is Palin at the Republican convention in her acceptance speech asked:
BTW Newsweek has now apologized for the op-ed they ran against Kamala.
Newsweek has dishonestly apologized to Senator Harris by fundamentally misrepresenting the Eastman essay they thought worthy of publication. From Newsweek's so-called "apology":
As we said in our earlier note, this essay was an attempt to examine a legal argument about the difference between "natural born" and "naturalized," the latter being ineligible to hold the office of president.
Okay, but if that's the case then the essay failed to make that distinction (and Newsweek's editors failed reading comprehension). From Eastman's essay:
The original Constitution did not define citizenship, but the 14th Amendment does — and it provides that "all persons born...in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens." Those who claim that birth alone is sufficient overlook the second phrase. The person must also be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, and that meant subject to the complete jurisdiction, not merely a partial jurisdiction such as that which applies to anyone temporarily sojourning in the United States (whether lawfully or unlawfully).
In other words, Eastman's argument is that Kamala Harris isn't a natural born citizen because she's not a citizen at all, failing the Fourteenth Amendment's requirement for citizenship. One consequence of this conclusion is that not only would Kamala Harris not be eligible to to be vice president, she is at present fraudulently holding her seat as Senator from California (which requires American citizenship) and may even be a stateless person. Newsweek should acknowledge this in any apology worthy of the name.
One interesting consequence of Eastman's argument, if taken at face value, is that the descendants of American slaves are not citizens either. Their enslaved ancestors were only subject to the "partial jurisdiction" of the United States, being property rather than citizens, so therefore their descendants cannot receive citizenship by being born in the United States. This is exactly counter to the common understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment being passed to extend full citizenship to former slaves and their descendants. I'd like to think this is an accidental flaw in Eastman's reasoning, but you never know with these people.
BTW, most of the so-called intellectuals trying to come up with plausible reasons to reverse American birthright citizenship seem to have connections to the Claremont Institute. This seems to be a long-term project for them and is another thing a respectable news publication should be aware of.
Maybe there's just something about Harris that seems a little . . . uppity.
Wow.
Well at least you've proved my point. Anyone who doesn't love Kamala Harris will be accused of being a racist. Even if, like me, you only preferred one of the other black women.
Maybe there's just something about Harris that seems a little . . . uppity.
Wow.
Well at least you've proved my point. Anyone who doesn't love Kamala Harris will be accused of being a racist.
Well, you seem to be very convinced that the American media's failure to immediately go after Senator Harris hammer-and-tongs on the exact questions that you want to have asked is some form of racist conspiracy, rather than a kind of "honeymoon period" that often occurs after such announcements (or that your particular concerns are idiosyncratic). The Democratic Party's failure to kneecap their own vice presidential candidate is supposedly similarly racist in origin. Kind of an everybody's-racist-but-me theory.
Yes, I keep talking about Kamala Harris on a thread entitled "Kamala." You ought to check out the Trump threads if you think this is "hung up."
I wasn’t just referring to this thread. I was also thinking of at least one other thread on the Democratic candidates. Your posts in this thread have seemed part of a larger theme.
@Twilight: "If this was supposed to be the Kamala Fan Thread, excited gushing only, the OP should have made it clearer."
I'm sure your comment was rhetorical but, as the thread starter, the last thing I wanted was gushing. As an interested Brit I knew nothing about Harris until she was picked, and I wanted to learn more. As always the Ship has been very helpful.
The question is, how much do these left-wing activist groups represent the views of Black voters?
Biden, the author of the notorious crime bill, was the Democratic veep candidate in 2008 and 2012. Did that hurt the ticket among Blacks?
It's sad but true that the American Left, ie. the people who claim to be the most indignant about the Democratic Party's sellout to racists, get almost no support from African Americans. Whether we're talking about the Green Party, the Bernie movement, or whatever, they are all largely white(and to a lesser extent Hispanic, in the case of Sanders) affairs. Black voters seem overwhelmingly uninterested in what the non-Democratic left is offering, and I don't expect that to change this year.
There is no Love Fest for Kamala Harris. The critique on the left is already there.
And that's what I've been trying to say. A few months ago Joe Biden said he was going to choose a black woman for running mate: "And there's plenty to choose from." There were plenty to choose from, my son and I got very excited and enthusiastic while researching some of the front runners for the position.
That's why I was so disappointed that out of that group of talented, experienced, brilliant, black women, he picked the one with the very questionable past regarding the biggest issue of the day.
The question is, how much do these left-wing activist groups represent the views of Black voters?
Biden, the author of the notorious crime bill, was the Democratic veep candidate in 2008 and 2012. Did that hurt the ticket among Blacks?
It's sad but true that the American Left, ie. the people who claim to be the most indignant about the Democratic Party's sellout to racists, get almost no support from African Americans. Whether we're talking about the Green Party, the Bernie movement, or whatever, they are all largely white(and to a lesser extent Hispanic, in the case of Sanders) affairs. Black voters¹ seem overwhelmingly uninterested in what the non-Democratic left is offering, and I don't expect that to change this year.
Incorrect. What they are interested in² is getting the best electable candidate. It is about practicality. The dumb fuck Bernie bros and Independent stans don't understand that they fuck themselves by voting with their "principles".
If one wants to effect change, it must be done well in advance, not at the ballot box.
¹Middle ages and older black women
²From what I understand
Meanwhile the Democrats refuse to admit she might have any flaws -- because she's black and a woman.
Not because of those facts, but because she's the party's candidate. Can you imagine what the Republicans would be saying if a Democrat came out with any criticism of her?
The only reason Kamala Harris is the VP pick is George Floyd. Otherwise, it would have probably been a white woman.
I don’t think it’s that clear-cut. Harris was one of the front runners for the running mate spot (assuming Biden got the nomination) long before George Floyd, and there was pressure for him to pick a black woman before George Floyd. I’m not saying that wasn’t a consideration when the decision was finally made, but I also don’t think it can be said it wouldn’t have happened but for George Floyd.
There is no Love Fest for Kamala Harris. The critique on the left is already there.
And that's what I've been trying to say. A few months ago Joe Biden said he was going to choose a black woman for running mate: "And there's plenty to choose from."
No, he said he was going to pick a woman. He never said a black woman, though many around him advocated that he pick a black woman.
He did say his first Supreme Court appointment would be a black woman.
The question is, how much do these left-wing activist groups represent the views of Black voters?
Biden, the author of the notorious crime bill, was the Democratic veep candidate in 2008 and 2012. Did that hurt the ticket among Blacks?
It's sad but true that the American Left, ie. the people who claim to be the most indignant about the Democratic Party's sellout to racists, get almost no support from African Americans. Whether we're talking about the Green Party, the Bernie movement, or whatever, they are all largely white(and to a lesser extent Hispanic, in the case of Sanders) affairs. Black voters¹ seem overwhelmingly uninterested in what the non-Democratic left is offering, and I don't expect that to change this year.
Incorrect. What they are interested in² is getting the best electable candidate. It is about practicality. The dumb fuck Bernie bros and Independent stans don't understand that they fuck themselves by voting with their "principles".
If one wants to effect change, it must be done well in advance, not at the ballot box.
¹Middle ages and older black women
²From what I understand
I think it's simply the case that black folk are the ones with skin in the game and so are less willing to let perfect be the enemy of good when it comes to voting.
The question is, how much do these left-wing activist groups represent the views of Black voters?
Biden, the author of the notorious crime bill, was the Democratic veep candidate in 2008 and 2012. Did that hurt the ticket among Blacks?
It's sad but true that the American Left, ie. the people who claim to be the most indignant about the Democratic Party's sellout to racists, get almost no support from African Americans. Whether we're talking about the Green Party, the Bernie movement, or whatever, they are all largely white(and to a lesser extent Hispanic, in the case of Sanders) affairs. Black voters¹ seem overwhelmingly uninterested in what the non-Democratic left is offering, and I don't expect that to change this year.
Incorrect. What they are interested in² is getting the best electable candidate. It is about practicality. The dumb fuck Bernie bros and Independent stans don't understand that they fuck themselves by voting with their "principles".
If one wants to effect change, it must be done well in advance, not at the ballot box.
¹Middle ages and older black women
²From what I understand
I think it's simply the case that black folk are the ones with skin in the game and so are less willing to let perfect be the enemy of good when it comes to voting.
Yes. You could re-work my comment as "Black voters are uninterested in voting for the far-left candidates." They probably would be interested in the platforms of those parties, if they had the luxury of voting for them.
--The affair in KH's long-ago past was with Willie Brown. I linked to his column about her, earlier in this thread. I thought about just mentioning "they'd been an item". But I didn't remember details, so I poked around online. Turned out it was complicated, so I decided not to mention it. Though it wasn't a secret, I hadn't heard any mention of it for a long time; and, on the off chance people had simply forgotten, I didn't want to put the idea out there. But it is, so...
WB takes some credit for her career, as he does with Nancy Pelosi and others. WB loves power, exercising it, being a power broker, and being known for that. So his account comes across as *maybe* helped her because of their relationship, *or* she slept her way up. OR he could be making too much of the whole thing, and maybe he introduced her to a couple of people, but everything else was up to her and her own hard work. And even Willie says "...Harris is the only one who, after I helped her, sent word that I would be indicted if I 'so much as jaywalked' while she was D.A. That’s politics for ya."
And that was way back when she first ran for D.A. in SF.
@Twilight said earlier that one thing she dislikes about Harris is that she is a flip-flopper.
I myself think that judicious flip-flopping is an excellent characteristic in a politician who works in a democracy. In order to achieve power, it is often necessary to put things in black and white terms. Giving a nuanced or evasive response is not going to play well with an electorate that thirsts for strong positions and simple answers. Because that is what everyone wants, right? It's universal in democracies I know, liberal western democracies.
But when our politicians achieve executive power - the power to allocate resources, the management of government departments etc - it is actually nuanced responses that address a given situation that is needed. It is risk management that is needed. This sometimes requires doing things that are inconsistent with your stated policies, or which are something less than the fulfillment of those policies. In order to make decisions, a politician in an executive role must manage various interests that may be impacted by a decision, and develop strategies with colleagues and, as I understand the American system, people who are your political enemies.
So just as a general statement, I much prefer the flip-flopping practical politician who gets things done, to the ideologue who will not budge on their extremely numerous core beliefs. This is a spectrum, of course, and there does have to be a core set of beliefs out of which politicians operate, or they are just hollow men (T.S. Eliot? Not sure. I only know the song.) Hollow men are the worst, like that unspeakable bastard Anthony Scaramucci, and his erstwhile boss.
I heard on a radio show someone pose the question: What should a Politician do? Should they do what they think the people who elected them want done? Should they do what they think is in the best interests of the people who elected them? I think the second is the right answer, hands down. Apart from the fact that discerning the will of the electorate in a given situation is impossible, our systems have been set up as representative democracies. So requiring consistency with a policy statement in the decisions our representatives come to strikes me as inappropriate,provided that a politician abides by their smallish set of core beliefs.
In the case of Kamala Harris, her flip flopping is on the issue of policing, as I understand things. I've already set out what I think about that: It looks like her decisions as California's AG were made in the best interests, as she saw it, of the administration of justice. This is exactly what a great politician should do! Now she is running for VP, and a different, nationwide set of circumstances confront her, and a different political climate. I say to her: flip away, Kamala! Flip and flop all the way to November 3.
The only reason Kamala Harris is the VP pick is George Floyd. Otherwise, it would have probably been a white woman.
I don’t think it’s that clear-cut. Harris was one of the front runners for the running mate spot (assuming Biden got the nomination) long before George Floyd, and there was pressure for him to pick a black woman before George Floyd. I’m not saying that wasn’t a consideration when the decision was finally made, but I also don’t think it can be said it wouldn’t have happened but for George Floyd.
That's my sense, too. By my lights, there were really only two possibilities for Biden to pick -- Harris or Warren. I think that Biden was looking for competence in governing, willingness to play for the team, and ability to stand up to the Trump smear machine. To my mind, that means Harris or Warren. I think Warren would have toed Biden's line if chosen, but it would have cost her with her base. She certainly has the governing chops like nobody else in Washington. But Harris brings relative youth and racial diversity to the ticket while not running the risk of disappointing her base by accepting the job. I think that Biden really does care that his actions are good for the people he's choosing as well as for himself. We've gotten out of the habit of expecting leaders to consider other people when they make a decision, but Biden is well and truly the anti-Trump in this regard.
@Twilight said earlier that one thing she dislikes about Harris is that she is a flip-flopper.
I myself think that judicious flip-flopping is an excellent characteristic in a politician who works in a democracy. In order to achieve power, it is often necessary to put things in black and white terms. Giving a nuanced or evasive response is not going to play well with an electorate that thirsts for strong positions and simple answers. Because that is what everyone wants, right? It's universal in democracies I know, liberal western democracies.
But when our politicians achieve executive power - the power to allocate resources, the management of government departments etc - it is actually nuanced responses that address a given situation that is needed. It is risk management that is needed. This sometimes requires doing things that are inconsistent with your stated policies, or which are something less than the fulfillment of those policies. In order to make decisions, a politician in an executive role must manage various interests that may be impacted by a decision, and develop strategies with colleagues and, as I understand the American system, people who are your political enemies.
So just as a general statement, I much prefer the flip-flopping practical politician who gets things done, to the ideologue who will not budge on their extremely numerous core beliefs. This is a spectrum, of course, and there does have to be a core set of beliefs out of which politicians operate, or they are just hollow men (T.S. Eliot? Not sure. I only know the song.) Hollow men are the worst, like that unspeakable bastard Anthony Scaramucci, and his erstwhile boss.
I heard on a radio show someone pose the question: What should a Politician do? Should they do what they think the people who elected them want done? Should they do what they think is in the best interests of the people who elected them? I think the second is the right answer, hands down. Apart from the fact that discerning the will of the electorate in a given situation is impossible, our systems have been set up as representative democracies. So requiring consistency with a policy statement in the decisions our representatives come to strikes me as inappropriate,provided that a politician abides by their smallish set of core beliefs.
In the case of Kamala Harris, her flip flopping is on the issue of policing, as I understand things. I've already set out what I think about that: It looks like her decisions as California's AG were made in the best interests, as she saw it, of the administration of justice. This is exactly what a great politician should do! Now she is running for VP, and a different, nationwide set of circumstances confront her, and a different political climate. I say to her: flip away, Kamala! Flip and flop all the way to November 3.
The flip flopping I didn't like was on the death penalty. That's an issue very important to me and I don't see any point in helping her achieve power if I don't know where she stands on that issue. She presented herself to the people of California as against the death penalty, but when she had a chance to end capital punishment she used her power to stop the momentum on that issue.
The flip flopping I didn't like was on the death penalty. That's an issue very important to me and I don't see any point in helping her achieve power if I don't know where she stands on that issue.
You really are incoherent on this thread. If you are passionate about this issue, can it really be a struggle to choose between the current POTUS, who never met an execution he didn't like, and any Democrat whatsoever? You really seem to have a hidden agenda here, although I have no idea what it is.
The flip flopping I didn't like was on the death penalty. That's an issue very important to me and I don't see any point in helping her achieve power if I don't know where she stands on that issue.
You really are incoherent on this thread. If you are passionate about this issue, can it really be a struggle to choose between the current POTUS, who never met an execution he didn't like, and any Democrat whatsoever? You really seem to have a hidden agenda here, although I have no idea what it is.
Maybe you would find me more coherent if you actually read my posts. If you had, you would have seen me say, several times, that without question I am voting for Biden /Harris. I'm just not a person who thinks because I plan to vote for someone, or have voted for them already, I then have to agree with everything they say and defend them no matter what they say or do. That sounds like Trump's supporters to me.
I'm sorry, how many people have actually been executed during the Trump Presidency? You make it sound like it's been hundreds, or thousands.
I believe the POTUS only has authority over federal executions, which are rare. That said, according to wiki, there have been three federal executions under Trump, and the last execution before that was in 2003.
I'm not sure if Trump ramped up the executions. The article I read says something about Obama commuting a couple of sentences, so presumably Trump retains the power to do that, but hasn't.
I'm sorry, how many people have actually been executed during the Trump Presidency? You make it sound like it's been hundreds, or thousands.
After 17 years without a federal execution, Trump's "justice" department managed to start the carnage back up. So far, they have executed three people this year, with two more scheduled for this year.
You really seem to have a hidden agenda here, although I have no idea what it is.
You also sound like a Trumpist with this "hidden agenda" nonsense.
Oh yes. Twilight at her outdated computer in Ohio is going to subvert the Democratic party and run herself as a write in candidate on a platform of more caramel sauce on Dairy Queen's sundaes.
@Twilight said earlier that one thing she dislikes about Harris is that she is a flip-flopper.
I myself think that judicious flip-flopping is an excellent characteristic in a politician who works in a democracy.
There also feels like there's a bit of gendered component here. Kamala Harris is a "flip flopper" because she's held different positions on capital punishment at different points in her career, but Joe Biden gets to evolve on the issue or reconsider it in a new light when he endorses Elizabeth Warren's bankruptcy reforms. Some of it could be a matter of priorities (@Twilight obviously cares more about capital punishment than bankruptcy law) but it also feels like playing on tropes that women are inherently deceitful and manipulative, so any change in position is an insincere attempt to gain some advantage.
I'm sorry, how many people have actually been executed during the Trump Presidency? You make it sound like it's been hundreds, or thousands.
Donald Trump and Bill Barr have made it a priority to get the federal government back in the executing people business and they've been successful. Executing people is obviously a much higher priority for Donald Trump than keeping the Post Office running or preventing Russian election interference (for example). This has been a long-standing priority of Trump's going back decades. He took out a full page ad in the New York Times in 1989 calling for the reinstatement of the death penalty in New York in order to execute five young men who later turned out to be innocent. He still maintains they should be executed, despite them being exonerated by DNA evidence.
Comments
Thank you!
The Trump campaign isn't mentioning any of that. They'd rather throw out silly non-issues like her citizenship, knowing it really doesn't matter because Trump's base wont like her in any case -- because she's black and a woman.
Meanwhile the Democrats refuse to admit she might have any flaws -- because she's black and a woman.
*Kamala questions.
No, Democrats refuse to admit she might have any flaws because -- in a most un-Democratic spirit -- we are refusing to wage war on ourselves instead of on Donald Trump.
Of course I'm not talking about campaign ads, but news shows that should be unbiased and private conversations -- like this one.
It seems childish to me to pretend ignorance of problematic, important liberal issues, while we root for the popular girl like middle school cheer leaders and send hateful notes to anyone who doesn't like her.
Do you think some undecided person (that one) is going to read this forum and think, "Oh I better not vote for Biden because Twilight has doubts about Kamala Harris?" Even Twilight isn't going to do that.
If this was supposed to be the Kamala Fan Thread, excited gushing only, the OP should have made it clearer.
Fixed quoting code. BroJames, Purgatory Host
Are we pretending ignorance of anything here? Are we sending hateful notes to anyone who dislikes Kamala? This really seems out of left field to me. What we are doing, in the words of a former pastor of mine, is refusing to "major in minors."
In the calculus of winning in 2020, and despite the perceived imperfections of her record, Kamala Harris was the best choice to make. Given the potential horror of another 4 years of Trump it would frankly be mad for Democrats not to get fully behind the Biden/Harris ticket.
And if the Trump campaign focuses on scrurrilous personal attacks to try to solidify the base, let them. Give them no ammunition which might be used to divide. If they go low, Democrats should go high.
There are a lot of inherent problems with the kind of "view from nowhere" you seem to be advocating. I'm not sure there is such a thing as a completely "unbiased" view. Your views on Kamala Harris relative to the death penalty (for example) are probably going to be biased by any pre-existing intellectual position you may have on the death penalty itself.
For example, what's the "unbiased" way to discuss the right-wing talking point that Kamala Harris is a whore? In the name of being "unbiased" are we required to extend the assumption of good faith to people who have clearly demonstrated that it isn't warranted, or are we allowed to notice that this is the kind of sexist smear that would probably be deployed against any woman running for office?
Must be convenient having such easily portable goalposts.
Have you considered that "the Democrats" aren't pointing out Kamala Harris' flaws because she's their chosen vice presidential candidate? I don't recall such concern about Tim Kaine's flaws four years ago, but maybe I missed it.
As if the guy would never have dreamed of making sexually degrading remarks about a woman, but gosh, Obama said that thing about Sarah Palin in 2008, so gee whiz, he just had no choice but to reply in kind twelve years later.
(And yes, I know Obama wasn't calling Palin herself a pig, he was saying the overall GOP platform was irredeemably bad. Looking at the speech on-line, he didn't even mention Palin in that part of the oratory.)
I don't see how they can. Trumpistas tend to be pro-gun and pro-death penalty. How does someone with that perspective mount an attack on Senator Harris for being insufficiently anti-gun or insufficiently anti-death penalty?
By being a raging hypocrite and talking out of both sides of your mouth? It doesn't seem like that should be a problem for Trump or the GOP.
The only way it could possibly work for the GOP is by spreading the criticism surreptitiously, to make it seem as if it's coming from left-wing groups.
For example...
Hire a bunch of trolls to impersonate left-wingers and plaster social media with attacks on Harris for being a redneck-sheriff type. The hope being that this convinces other left-wingers to either vote Green or stay home.
Those aren't portable goal posts but the difference between campaigning to everyone and confirmed Democrats talking among ourselves.
Every political candidate for high office that I've paid much attention to has had his/her entire life scrutinized and that included personal sexual relations. We all heard about Newt Gingrich asking his wife for a divorce while she was dying in the hospital. John McCain divorcing his crippled wife after a six month affair with his second wife. Gary Hart whose extramarital affair ended his run for president. Clinton's bimbo irruptions seemed never ending. More recently Trump's long history of affairs and marriages with mistresses and "models." It may not be nice, but the Republicans bringing up Harris's affair seems like politics as usual to me.
Don't worry. She is well loved by most people and will probably be our next president after Biden. Even though I'm not crazy about her I'm glad she's broken a barrier for black women. I still think it will be a cold day in hell before a white woman, our largest demographic will ever be president. They remain our most hated group -- see Karen thread.
I’ve heard plenty of conversations in the news about the pros and cons, strengths and flaws of Harris.
You seem really hung up on this, and determined to pin it on her being black and female. I’m not at all suggesting she should be free from criticism. Far from it. But there does seem to be a fixation going on here, and a bias on your part at work.
But refering to the woman involved as a "mattress" goes way beyond that. I am familiar enough with the term to know that it is not a synonym for "Someone who improperly benefits from a personal connection". It's a synonym for "slut".
This is a fairly common occurrence in the wake of the announcement of a running mate. Sarah Palin received several weeks of good, almost fawning, press that only started to go sour about a month after the announcement of her being McCain's vice presidential pick. (Around the time of her disastrous "I read all the newspapers" interview with Katie Couric.)
That seems overly optimistic. If elected, Harris is probably going to end up the most hated woman in the country. If Republicans gain/retain control of one House of Congress during her hypothetical tenure as vice president expect endless conspiracy-mongering hearings. Bill Ayers secretly ghost wrote her book? Gay sex orgies? Sub-optimal server management practices? The possibilities are endless and a certain segment of the population will believe it no matter what.
Maybe there's just something about Harris that seems a little . . . uppity.
“Uppity coloured must not be a success as President or Vice President. They must be put back in their place.”
That was the GOP Congress motivation re Obama and of course it will continue.
The strength of the choice of Harris is that she is not the person the progressives want.
The only reason Kamala Harris is the VP pick is George Floyd. Otherwise, it would have probably been a white woman. Also, her being fairly light-skinned was definitely a factor.
I recall is Palin at the Republican convention in her acceptance speech asked:
Do you know the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtZfGgen30c
BTW Newsweek has now apologized for the op-ed they ran against Kamala.
Some pointed out if we are going to call Ms Harris, Kamala, we should call Joe Biden Donald Trump, and Mike Pence by their first names.
Joe often introduces himself as "Joe." Mike is often referred to by first name. But it is The Don who seems to have a problem with his name.
Newsweek has dishonestly apologized to Senator Harris by fundamentally misrepresenting the Eastman essay they thought worthy of publication. From Newsweek's so-called "apology":
Okay, but if that's the case then the essay failed to make that distinction (and Newsweek's editors failed reading comprehension). From Eastman's essay:
In other words, Eastman's argument is that Kamala Harris isn't a natural born citizen because she's not a citizen at all, failing the Fourteenth Amendment's requirement for citizenship. One consequence of this conclusion is that not only would Kamala Harris not be eligible to to be vice president, she is at present fraudulently holding her seat as Senator from California (which requires American citizenship) and may even be a stateless person. Newsweek should acknowledge this in any apology worthy of the name.
One interesting consequence of Eastman's argument, if taken at face value, is that the descendants of American slaves are not citizens either. Their enslaved ancestors were only subject to the "partial jurisdiction" of the United States, being property rather than citizens, so therefore their descendants cannot receive citizenship by being born in the United States. This is exactly counter to the common understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment being passed to extend full citizenship to former slaves and their descendants. I'd like to think this is an accidental flaw in Eastman's reasoning, but you never know with these people.
BTW, most of the so-called intellectuals trying to come up with plausible reasons to reverse American birthright citizenship seem to have connections to the Claremont Institute. This seems to be a long-term project for them and is another thing a respectable news publication should be aware of.
Yes, I keep talking about Kamala Harris on a thread entitled "Kamala." You ought to check out the Trump threads if you think this is "hung up."
Wow.
Well at least you've proved my point. Anyone who doesn't love Kamala Harris will be accused of being a racist. Even if, like me, you only preferred one of the other black women.
Wow, again.
Well, you seem to be very convinced that the American media's failure to immediately go after Senator Harris hammer-and-tongs on the exact questions that you want to have asked is some form of racist conspiracy, rather than a kind of "honeymoon period" that often occurs after such announcements (or that your particular concerns are idiosyncratic). The Democratic Party's failure to kneecap their own vice presidential candidate is supposedly similarly racist in origin. Kind of an everybody's-racist-but-me theory.
You ought not to be condescending.
I'm sure your comment was rhetorical but, as the thread starter, the last thing I wanted was gushing. As an interested Brit I knew nothing about Harris until she was picked, and I wanted to learn more. As always the Ship has been very helpful.
Feeling sorry for a child is condescending? That's new to me.
Biden, the author of the notorious crime bill, was the Democratic veep candidate in 2008 and 2012. Did that hurt the ticket among Blacks?
It's sad but true that the American Left, ie. the people who claim to be the most indignant about the Democratic Party's sellout to racists, get almost no support from African Americans. Whether we're talking about the Green Party, the Bernie movement, or whatever, they are all largely white(and to a lesser extent Hispanic, in the case of Sanders) affairs. Black voters seem overwhelmingly uninterested in what the non-Democratic left is offering, and I don't expect that to change this year.
And that's what I've been trying to say. A few months ago Joe Biden said he was going to choose a black woman for running mate: "And there's plenty to choose from." There were plenty to choose from, my son and I got very excited and enthusiastic while researching some of the front runners for the position.
That's why I was so disappointed that out of that group of talented, experienced, brilliant, black women, he picked the one with the very questionable past regarding the biggest issue of the day.
If one wants to effect change, it must be done well in advance, not at the ballot box.
¹Middle ages and older black women
²From what I understand
Not because of those facts, but because she's the party's candidate. Can you imagine what the Republicans would be saying if a Democrat came out with any criticism of her?
No, he said he was going to pick a woman. He never said a black woman, though many around him advocated that he pick a black woman.
He did say his first Supreme Court appointment would be a black woman.
That's not what was condescending. But you knew that.
I think it's simply the case that black folk are the ones with skin in the game and so are less willing to let perfect be the enemy of good when it comes to voting.
Yes. You could re-work my comment as "Black voters are uninterested in voting for the far-left candidates." They probably would be interested in the platforms of those parties, if they had the luxury of voting for them.
--KH may have partly been chosen because she and JB's late son Beau were good friends (The Guardian, via Yahoo).
--The affair in KH's long-ago past was with Willie Brown. I linked to his column about her, earlier in this thread. I thought about just mentioning "they'd been an item". But I didn't remember details, so I poked around online. Turned out it was complicated, so I decided not to mention it. Though it wasn't a secret, I hadn't heard any mention of it for a long time; and, on the off chance people had simply forgotten, I didn't want to put the idea out there. But it is, so...
"Former S.F. Mayor Willie Brown writes about dating Kamala Harris, appointing her to posts" (USA Today).
That's from early 2019. WB was married and estranged, and KH was single. She's distanced herself from the relationship, since then.
WB takes some credit for her career, as he does with Nancy Pelosi and others. WB loves power, exercising it, being a power broker, and being known for that. So his account comes across as *maybe* helped her because of their relationship, *or* she slept her way up. OR he could be making too much of the whole thing, and maybe he introduced her to a couple of people, but everything else was up to her and her own hard work. And even Willie says "...Harris is the only one who, after I helped her, sent word that I would be indicted if I 'so much as jaywalked' while she was D.A. That’s politics for ya."
And that was way back when she first ran for D.A. in SF.
--"Public defender: I worked with Kamala Harris. She was the most progressive DA in California.
I grappled with this idea of defending a former prosecutor for a long time, but I have to say what I feel is right to set the record straight on Harris." (USA Today.)
I myself think that judicious flip-flopping is an excellent characteristic in a politician who works in a democracy. In order to achieve power, it is often necessary to put things in black and white terms. Giving a nuanced or evasive response is not going to play well with an electorate that thirsts for strong positions and simple answers. Because that is what everyone wants, right? It's universal in democracies I know, liberal western democracies.
But when our politicians achieve executive power - the power to allocate resources, the management of government departments etc - it is actually nuanced responses that address a given situation that is needed. It is risk management that is needed. This sometimes requires doing things that are inconsistent with your stated policies, or which are something less than the fulfillment of those policies. In order to make decisions, a politician in an executive role must manage various interests that may be impacted by a decision, and develop strategies with colleagues and, as I understand the American system, people who are your political enemies.
So just as a general statement, I much prefer the flip-flopping practical politician who gets things done, to the ideologue who will not budge on their extremely numerous core beliefs. This is a spectrum, of course, and there does have to be a core set of beliefs out of which politicians operate, or they are just hollow men (T.S. Eliot? Not sure. I only know the song.) Hollow men are the worst, like that unspeakable bastard Anthony Scaramucci, and his erstwhile boss.
I heard on a radio show someone pose the question: What should a Politician do? Should they do what they think the people who elected them want done? Should they do what they think is in the best interests of the people who elected them? I think the second is the right answer, hands down. Apart from the fact that discerning the will of the electorate in a given situation is impossible, our systems have been set up as representative democracies. So requiring consistency with a policy statement in the decisions our representatives come to strikes me as inappropriate,provided that a politician abides by their smallish set of core beliefs.
In the case of Kamala Harris, her flip flopping is on the issue of policing, as I understand things. I've already set out what I think about that: It looks like her decisions as California's AG were made in the best interests, as she saw it, of the administration of justice. This is exactly what a great politician should do! Now she is running for VP, and a different, nationwide set of circumstances confront her, and a different political climate. I say to her: flip away, Kamala! Flip and flop all the way to November 3.
That's my sense, too. By my lights, there were really only two possibilities for Biden to pick -- Harris or Warren. I think that Biden was looking for competence in governing, willingness to play for the team, and ability to stand up to the Trump smear machine. To my mind, that means Harris or Warren. I think Warren would have toed Biden's line if chosen, but it would have cost her with her base. She certainly has the governing chops like nobody else in Washington. But Harris brings relative youth and racial diversity to the ticket while not running the risk of disappointing her base by accepting the job. I think that Biden really does care that his actions are good for the people he's choosing as well as for himself. We've gotten out of the habit of expecting leaders to consider other people when they make a decision, but Biden is well and truly the anti-Trump in this regard.
The flip flopping I didn't like was on the death penalty. That's an issue very important to me and I don't see any point in helping her achieve power if I don't know where she stands on that issue. She presented herself to the people of California as against the death penalty, but when she had a chance to end capital punishment she used her power to stop the momentum on that issue.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/kamala-harris-dual-roles-mixed-record-death-penalty/story?id=65081789
You really are incoherent on this thread. If you are passionate about this issue, can it really be a struggle to choose between the current POTUS, who never met an execution he didn't like, and any Democrat whatsoever? You really seem to have a hidden agenda here, although I have no idea what it is.
Maybe you would find me more coherent if you actually read my posts. If you had, you would have seen me say, several times, that without question I am voting for Biden /Harris. I'm just not a person who thinks because I plan to vote for someone, or have voted for them already, I then have to agree with everything they say and defend them no matter what they say or do. That sounds like Trump's supporters to me.
I believe the POTUS only has authority over federal executions, which are rare. That said, according to wiki, there have been three federal executions under Trump, and the last execution before that was in 2003.
I'm not sure if Trump ramped up the executions. The article I read says something about Obama commuting a couple of sentences, so presumably Trump retains the power to do that, but hasn't.
After 17 years without a federal execution, Trump's "justice" department managed to start the carnage back up. So far, they have executed three people this year, with two more scheduled for this year.
You also sound like a Trumpist with this "hidden agenda" nonsense.
Oh yes. Twilight at her outdated computer in Ohio is going to subvert the Democratic party and run herself as a write in candidate on a platform of more caramel sauce on Dairy Queen's sundaes.
Fixed broken quoting code. BroJames, Purgatory Host
There also feels like there's a bit of gendered component here. Kamala Harris is a "flip flopper" because she's held different positions on capital punishment at different points in her career, but Joe Biden gets to evolve on the issue or reconsider it in a new light when he endorses Elizabeth Warren's bankruptcy reforms. Some of it could be a matter of priorities (@Twilight obviously cares more about capital punishment than bankruptcy law) but it also feels like playing on tropes that women are inherently deceitful and manipulative, so any change in position is an insincere attempt to gain some advantage.
Donald Trump and Bill Barr have made it a priority to get the federal government back in the executing people business and they've been successful. Executing people is obviously a much higher priority for Donald Trump than keeping the Post Office running or preventing Russian election interference (for example). This has been a long-standing priority of Trump's going back decades. He took out a full page ad in the New York Times in 1989 calling for the reinstatement of the death penalty in New York in order to execute five young men who later turned out to be innocent. He still maintains they should be executed, despite them being exonerated by DNA evidence.