Kamala Harris' Non-Progressive Past

Don't be taken in by the accolades Kamala Harris is getting for her torching of Joe Biden at the debate. Her record as a prosecutor was not progressive. She was on the wrong side of several issues.

Here's my post from January summing it up. Here's an oped in the New York Times this January by Laura Bazeleon, a law professor and former director Innocence Project at Loyala Univ. in L.A. And here is The Two Faces of Kamala Harris in Jacobin Magazine from 2017.

I'll leave the last word for now to my good friend, colleague and exceptional criminal defense attorney Lisa Wayne, who wrote on her Facebook page after the debate:

When you are drinking the kool-Aid this morning remember. Yes, many prosecutors run for office and can be good. Just remember when you are a prosecutor, no matter who the hell you are, you are aligning yourself with a biased and unjust system. She did for many many years. She had the opportunity to fix it and did nothing as the AG. You be the judge.

This is not to say I wouldn't vote for her if she got the nomination. The only Democrat right now I would not vote for is Joe Biden -- not for his stance on busing, but for his horrible 25 year record on criminal justice. He was a one-man crime band.

His plans have long roots. He should never be forgiven for the 1994 Crime Bill and AEDPA. [More...]

I have consistently opposed Crime Warrior In Chief Joe Biden on TalkLeft since 2003. (All posts are accumulated here.) Pick any drug law you don't like in the last 30 years, and you'll find he's responsible. If he runs, it will be the first time I sit out a presidential election. He will never get my vote.

PS. Bernie Sanders wasn't much better on the 1994 Crime Bill. He was a Congressman back then and he voted for the House-Senate Conference Report on August 21, 1994 (68 Democratic Senators voted against it). Here is the list of all actions on the draconian bill.

It would be nice to have a candidate without so much baggage Republicans can use to call them hypocrites. That means someone younger. Right now I consider Julian Castro to be a breath of fresh air.

Pew Research says:

We project that the 2020 election will mark the first time that Hispanics will be the largest racial or ethnic minority group in the electorate, accounting for just over 13% of eligible voters – slightly more than blacks. This change reflects the gradual but continuous growth in the Hispanic share of eligible voters, up from 9% in the 2008 presidential election and 7% in the 2000 election. The black eligible voter population has grown about as fast as the electorate overall, meaning their share has held constant at about 12% since 2000.

And yes, Joe Biden opposed busing:

But that doesn't mean Kamala Harris gets a halo. If Biden is to be held accountable for his past, she should likewise be held accountable for hers.

< Democrats Debate: Night Two Live Thread | Donald Trump's Photo Op at the DMZ >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I'm not into purity tests (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by CST on Sun Jun 30, 2019 at 05:00:23 AM EST
    Not for Harris, not for Warren, not even for Boden although he's by far my last choice, probably even behind Bernie if only because I'd prefer an ineffective socialist to someone who would effectively sell us out to nevertrump Republicans.

    Hell I'd vote for W. If he was the only one running against Trump. At least I wouldn't worry about him starting a nuclear via tweet.

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Yman on Sun Jun 30, 2019 at 07:06:53 AM EST
    This country can't afford 4 more years of this incompetent buffoon.  

    Blue no matter who.


    What's going on at the border... (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by magster on Wed Jul 03, 2019 at 03:58:26 PM EST
    ... wouldn't happen with Biden. RBG and Breyer are north of 80 years old.

    Biden's only above Gabbard on my preferred list, but he'd be light years better than Trump.


    Yman, can I use that line? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 30, 2019 at 08:17:04 PM EST
    "Blue No Matter Who" -- I love it (except for Biden, who I hope will not get the nomination)

    Of course (none / 0) (#17)
    by Yman on Sun Jun 30, 2019 at 08:27:09 PM EST
    Although, I didn't come up with it.  Plus, I think the Biden qualifier kind'uv negates the intent.

    I fear that in (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jun 30, 2019 at 03:34:52 PM EST
    hunting for a presidential candidate from the field of Democratic contenders we may become like those HGTV house hunters who reject a property because they do not like the paint color in the spare bedroom.

    The astute house hunter needs to look at all aspects of the property along with a vision beyond the previous decorating scheme. Moreover, considerations need include other factors that may impinge on selection that go beyond the property itself.

     Unfortunately, we have learned that Republicans have overlooked, if not relished, the cracked and crumbling foundation of the House of Trump because they like the all white decor and lower taxes for higher priced properties.

    The first debates were an important first pass.  An introduction to be further informed by future debates and additional campaigning. And, too, their vision for the position of president. It may well be that our first impressions will be those that prevail. But, it will be important to see if our initial thinking is confirmed, or not.

     Critically, in my view, the Democratic primary contenders need to present a bill of particulars for the danger not only of Trump's own past wrong doings and maladministration, but also, what is at stake for our democracy if re-elected, including authoritarianism and continued radicalization of our federal courts.

    KeyDans, HH is a good analogy (none / 0) (#16)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 30, 2019 at 08:26:18 PM EST
    I'm probably the only person here who has seen every eposide of House Hunters International (except those in a few places I know I would not want to live).

    I think the primary season is the time to express our opinions positive and negative of all the candidates, and once the nominee is chosen, then we come to grips with giving up some of the items on our wish list. But there are a few dealbrakers -- things on the list that are "must haves". For me, I can't accept Biden. If he is the nominee, I think I will turn my attention to trying to win control of the senate which will hopefully be some sort of block to Trump if he wins another term.

    I will always urge people to vote for the Democratic candidate -- personally, if Biden is the nominee, I will vote downticket only.


    I'm with you on (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 01, 2019 at 06:50:29 AM EST
    this except for the not voting for Biden part. I will vote for him but that is all. No texting, no being a member of tweet teams, no calling voters, no donations all of which I did for Hillary. I will do nothing for Biden and will focus on the senate race here in GA. We have a fantastic candidate named Teresa Tomlinson who I can get excited about and focus on.

    Joe Biden has almost a 50-year (none / 0) (#21)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jul 01, 2019 at 12:06:37 PM EST
    public record so there is much to consider and evaluate within the context of the particular situation and time.

     However, it seems introspection is foreign to the former vice president. And, his reference to Eastland and Talmadge might have been explained away in terms of once necessitating an ability to work with awful people, such as segregationist senators in his own party. While Trump et al. are certainly awful, were these  the right examples to be selected to demonstrate his present day skills?

    Biden may have attempted to modernize his thinking, but he needs work in updating his modes of expression. And, learning what every other Democrat has learned that the Republicans of today are not the Republicans of yore. Or what he might have thought they once were.

    Biden was of no help to the Democrat running for Congress against Republican Congressman Fred Upton when he spoke (for a fee of $200,000, paid, in part, by the Upton Foundation--Upton's grandfather was co-founder of Whirlpool Appliances) at the Economic Club of SW Michigan a month before the November 2018 midterms.  Biden, in his speech, praised Fred Upton as "one of the finest guys I've ever worked with." And, noted Upton's work in cancer research, ignoring Upton's record, including  the LA Times comment that Upton represents one of the biggest threats to Planet Earth on Planet Earth.

    Of course, if it came down to it, I would vote for Biden viewing him as a reasonable antidote to the poisonous Trump and, along with his administrative and judicial appointments, a transition to sanity in government and the preservation of the Constitution.


    It apparently (none / 0) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 01, 2019 at 12:51:34 PM EST
    gets worse with his praise for Strom Thurmond and this was in the 2000's not the 1970's. I grew up in SC and the nicest thing you can say about Strom is he believed in spending a lot of money on the military. And then there's his praise for Pence. Ironically he never seems to have any praise for women candidates or women who served in congress. Now he's pulling the misogyny crap too on Kamala. He already dropped his misogyny bomb on Warren. I'm just begging people PLEASE DO NOT MAKE ME VOTE FOR BIDEN. We have so many great candidates and it is to my eternal frustration that the two worst candidates we have are leading in the polls.

    Y'all all gotta stop with what or who you won't (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by vicndabx on Mon Jul 01, 2019 at 12:11:08 PM EST
    vote for.  People are out here suffering while y'all look for perfection. We have to wrest control of our government back from these nuts. There are two sides at this point - no more no less. If Joe is the nominee we all who claim to be of the left need to pull hard for Joe.

    Regarding Kamala I can understand that progress is slow. I can only imagine the entrenched interests she had to deal with in CA as a the first black AG. Cops, pols, blacks, whites, Latinos. All while trying to stay in office so she can move the ball forward incrementally. I tried to tell y'all this same thing about Barack Obama, the first black anything in a world dominated by white concerns has a difficult road to navigate. Black folk can't just blow $hit up because some whites on the left expect us to.

    Just like Obama, folks expect the black person to be the savior after decades of white folks doing dirt when what is needed is patience and support.

    Here's a Vox link that provides a more balanced perspective on Kamala"s time as AG. Link

    You know (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 01, 2019 at 12:57:00 PM EST
    I never expected Obama to be the savior of anything but I remember a lot of people saying Obama was going to usher in a post racial post partisan America. I called it BS then. Maybe it is because I live in GA that I realized this or what. But to me it was very annoying that people shopped that nonsense.

    I will vote for Joe but I hope I don't have to. There's lots of interesting races to focus on and they probably need help. I'll just work locally.


    FWIW (none / 0) (#27)
    by CST on Mon Jul 01, 2019 at 01:53:43 PM EST
    I always saw it as he'd change perceptions of black people in America from within the black community.  IMO he was successful in that regard.  Sometimes it's not about how outside groups see you, but how you see yourself.

    I would be happy (none / 0) (#28)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 01, 2019 at 02:07:12 PM EST
    but worried to vote for Kamala.

    If only she would go Pubic Option instead of Medicare for All, and would reject free college for everyone.


    That would place her in the (none / 0) (#29)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 01, 2019 at 02:08:25 PM EST
    more moderate lane than Elizabeth Warren....

    I think it could make a difference in getting elected POTUS and help with the Senate races....Arizona in particular.....


    So, Kamalaphiles, (none / 0) (#30)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 01, 2019 at 02:10:54 PM EST
    what is ticket?

    Kamala/Mayor Pete?



    Not really a Kamalaphile (none / 0) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 01, 2019 at 04:20:18 PM EST
    But I could see her picking one of the safe straight white guys.  One who might help with a state.

    Or Bernie? (none / 0) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 01, 2019 at 04:22:58 PM EST
    That would be an interesting choice

    Probably (none / 0) (#35)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jul 01, 2019 at 04:54:07 PM EST
    a man with serious foreign policy chops, which all of them (excepting Biden ) lack.

    Yeah, (none / 0) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 01, 2019 at 05:04:11 PM EST
    I'm not too big on the whole free college thing. A friend of mine who lived in Europe for years said that people here don't really understand the whole free college thing as it is in Europe. A lot of majors will be eliminated due to their cost benefit and a lot of private colleges without endowments will go under.

    I understand how expensive it has gotten and I am very sympathetic to that. However I believe it should be made affordable not free.


    Ga6 is right (1.00 / 1) (#44)
    by ragebot on Mon Jul 01, 2019 at 07:10:38 PM EST
    about going to a university in Europe.  The system is completely different there.  In what we call middle school, or junior high school back in the day, a large majority of the students are put on a trade school track (probably 70%+ across Europe) based on stuff like math test scores; and only the top tier get a shot at going to a university.  Even then you have to produce for the rest of your pre college years to get admitted to a college.

    While there are some majors like art there are not a lot of them.  Even what I will call soft majors are very structured and a lot of wrote absorb facts and spit them back out.  With a far smaller portion of high school students going on to a university and the university not having a lot of fluff like American colleges do it is easy to see how the government can afford to pay for it.

    US colleges have things like football programs that absorb money at a frightening rate; not to mention the non revenue sports mandated by Title IX that only gobble up money.  Go to any state university and it has a huge rec center with indoor pools, indoor basketball courts, spas, weight room, and personal trainers.  When I was in college in the 1960s there were around three profs for every support person at a university; now that has flipped to three support employees for every prof.  Not to mention when I say prof that includes grad students who are teaching and other non tenure teaching positions.

    While it is not PC the fact of the matter is there are a significant number of women who go to college to find a suitable high earning husband.  Not saying most females do but it does happen.  There are also a lot of kids in college who are undeclared majors in the junior year.  This would never happen in Europe; you start out in a major there and that is it.

    No question if a student in an American university wants to they can study hard and get a great education.  On the other hand there are also plenty of students that are simply goofing off the whole time they are there.  Look at the recent scandal with Hollywood celebs, and others, paying big bucks to get their kids in top tier schools.  Does anyone really think these kids are going to be studying hard.

    Free college would only make thing worse.


    Private colleges (none / 0) (#39)
    by CST on Mon Jul 01, 2019 at 05:29:39 PM EST
    Without endowments are already going under, and should be. IMO, fewer majors is not nearly the threat current college tuition is. FWIW, I have friends in Europe studying art history, for free.

    For the life of me I don't understand why people are so opposed to this kind of thing.

    Maybe it would help if we all acknowledged that the government doesn't actually have to pay the bills, it's not like they pay them now.  The fact that the entire student debt load which is crushing young Americans could be paid for by repealing the latest tax cut is a disgrace for our nation, and I've finished paying mine off so this isn't personal anymore.  We can do  so much better.  I'm so tired of this kind of American "exceptionalism".


    Meanwhile (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jul 01, 2019 at 05:47:27 PM EST
    a public university is being murdered
    Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy (R) vetoed a line from the state's budget that funds the University of Alaska system on June 28, reports KTVA. The cut amounts to $130 million, which is about 40 percent of the system's total budget.
    That's the Republican plan for higher ed.

    My opposition (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 01, 2019 at 05:52:22 PM EST
    to it is it actually helps the people who don't need help and hurts the ones that do. If a kid doesn't get the chance in high school they don't get to go to college because all the college slots are already taken up by the people who have had all the advantages for the 12 prior years. I really don't think tax payers should be putting Ivanka Trump's kids through college for free. I think there should be some sort of income based tuition program where your tuition is based on your income.

    Much more important than college is shoring up the K-12 schools. Because if the K-12 schools are not working free college is really pointless. Only the privileged will be going to college free or not.

    Another thing he pointed out is that in Europe they start determining whether you are college material in middle school and then start putting you in courses either on a college track or not. Actually, I'm not opposed to this at all though. We used to do this in GA and it was to our demise when we quit letting kids get a technical high school diploma. My oldest son really suffered in high school because of it. He's LD and ADHD and not college material but would have thrived in that sort of program.


    Ivanka's kids (none / 0) (#43)
    by CST on Mon Jul 01, 2019 at 06:13:25 PM EST
    Would never go to public school

    What you're describing sounds like Germany but I don't know that it's common in other places.  FWIW, there are some serious issues with that system,  like the fact that they miraculously think every kid of Turkish descent isn't college material.   I could definitely see that happening here.  At least with a less tiered high school system everyone gets a shot.  That's not to say that we can't/shouldn't do better by kids who don't want to go to college though.


    Harris - Biden (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by NoSides on Thu Jul 04, 2019 at 05:07:22 PM EST
    "Mr. Biden expressed frustration at Senator Kamala Harris's criticism about his 1970s-era opposition to busing."

    I think Mr. Biden should be taken to task for his outrageous, sexist and racist treatment of Anita Hill.


    Still (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 29, 2019 at 06:02:19 PM EST
    Better than Biden.

    I will (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 29, 2019 at 07:22:59 PM EST
    second that.

    Or as the Irish say (none / 0) (#2)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 29, 2019 at 06:10:12 PM EST
    better than a sharp stick in the eye.

    I actually had that happen to me. (none / 0) (#20)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jul 01, 2019 at 10:26:15 AM EST
    Felt my eyeball squish in the socket like like a grape. It tore open the Lasik flap from a decade before. Hurt like a mutha. Ended up having a procedure at the eye doc the next day.

    Well (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 29, 2019 at 07:22:40 PM EST
    my main point after the debate was Kamala did us all a favor by showing us how poor a candidate Biden would be against Trump.

    I still do not have a candidate. I was hoping Amy Klobuchar would get attention after the debate but that seems to not be happening. I'm not sold on Warren either especially after she said she would ban private insurance. That kind of thing is going to kill her chances with potential voters in the suburbs. I thought the debates would help me pick a candidate but that seems to not have happened. I guess I'm back on waiting until Super Tuesday or the crowd thins significantly. We need to eliminate about 1/2 the people that are in these debates.

    Imagine (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jun 30, 2019 at 08:00:18 AM EST
    what she could do against tRump.

    I liked Kamala early, mostly on gut feelings.  She faded a bit with me as I found her policy proposals nebulous and her campaign lacked a theme.

    At least for me, this debate has opened my eyes to a serious raison d'etre for her campaign. Who better to prosecute the Republican crime cartel?

    I can picture her ripping tRump to shreds on the debate stage, I can picture her as president.

    The odds are this election will not revolve around policy. You can almost guarantee it will be some kind of reality show, the crafty prosecutor vs the crime boss works for me.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 30, 2019 at 10:36:35 AM EST
    that was one of the reasons I was a fan of Amy too because she's also a former prosecutor. I understand the reluctance of a legal blog to support a prosecutor but in the same vein I agree that a former prosecutor is probably the best type of candidate to run against a career criminal like Trump.

    It Amuses Me (none / 0) (#11)
    by RickyJim on Sun Jun 30, 2019 at 04:13:09 PM EST
    that there is so much prosecutor bashing on this blog, but when I suggest that all such positions be part of civil service (like in the rest of the world), I am dismissed as a kook.  I think that it would eliminate those who view the job as a stepping stone to higher political office and perform it accordingly.

    The stereotype is prosecutors who (none / 0) (#12)
    by McBain on Sun Jun 30, 2019 at 05:24:18 PM EST
    take advantage of poor, uneducated defendants without the best representation to pad their conviction stats to get promoted.  I'm sure there are honest ones out there but I'm very suspicious of those who stay on that side of the law.  

    Non white female ones (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 30, 2019 at 05:33:04 PM EST
    Especially problematic

    Here's a quote from (none / 0) (#14)
    by McBain on Sun Jun 30, 2019 at 08:14:30 PM EST
    Lara Bazelon that troubles me.  
    Time after time, when progressives urged her to embrace criminal justice reforms as a district attorney and then the state's attorney general, Ms. Harris opposed them or stayed silent. Most troubling, Ms. Harris fought tooth and nail to uphold wrongful convictions that had been secured through official misconduct that included evidence tampering, false testimony and the suppression of crucial information by prosecutors.

    If that's true I really don't want to see someone like that rewarded with the nomination.  Democrats can do better.  


    the majority are honest (none / 0) (#18)
    by nyjets on Mon Jul 01, 2019 at 05:23:04 AM EST
    Honesty I think the majority are honest and try to be ethical about their job.
    Unfortunately, there are a few that ruin it for the rest.

    That's quite a quote from Lisa Wayne (none / 0) (#5)
    by McBain on Sat Jun 29, 2019 at 08:18:33 PM EST
    It would be nice to hear a candidate talk seriously about improving that "biased and unjust" system. Not just saying we need lesser sentences for drug offenders but taking on the entire system.    

    Also background on anti segregation efforts (none / 0) (#25)
    by vicndabx on Mon Jul 01, 2019 at 01:23:59 PM EST
    euphemistically referred to as "busing" in current debates. started long before she became AG. The Atlantic

    To be clear I have no candidate in this debate yet. If K had a choice I'd actually choose either Bennett or Insley just because of the peccadilloes people worry about. Not to mention my worry about what M4ALL will do to my livelihood and our economy.

    Please disregard (none / 0) (#26)
    by vicndabx on Mon Jul 01, 2019 at 01:28:10 PM EST
    "started long before she became AG" and other typos, "K" should be "I". iPhone and small web buttons - yeesh.

    new (none / 0) (#31)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jul 01, 2019 at 02:54:47 PM EST
    cnn poll
    Warren -16
    Bernie- 15
    Mayor Pete-6

    Just think how high (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 01, 2019 at 03:48:29 PM EST
    Joe would poll if he was still alive.

    The (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jul 01, 2019 at 05:03:06 PM EST
    really bad news for Joe is that he still has to face Warren, replace busing with the bankruptcy bill and kapow.

    None of that (none / 0) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 01, 2019 at 05:07:50 PM EST
    would matter that much if Biden knew how to actually reply. Hillary got a lot of the same things from Bernie yet she was able to handle him.

    I would like to see Warren and Bernie in the same debate to see what she does if anything to him. Warren actually should be more concerned with taking out Bernie as that would help her more than taking out Biden.

    And I'm going to be watching to see if Warren gets the same response going after Biden that Harris got.


    The (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jul 01, 2019 at 05:43:03 PM EST
    problem is that Biden has a very long explicit record of siding with the CC companies and banks.

    I'm surprised that Bernie did not lay into Biden this time, Warren will not pass up on the opportunity.

    I think she will able to generate plenty of buzz, the media smells blood in the water an Warren can bring the heat.


    are you sure? (none / 0) (#47)
    by thomas rogan on Sun Jul 07, 2019 at 09:32:14 PM EST
    1.  No more private health insurance
    2.  Thinks that forced school busing was a good idea
    3.  Wants to give reparations and/or large sums of money to buy houses to blacks

    Trump will have a field day with this.

    1. Kids in cages (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by CST on Mon Jul 08, 2019 at 03:47:25 AM EST
    1. A president who can't form a complete sentence and is the laughing stock of the world.
    2. Sucking up to brutal dictatorships.
    3. The continued decline of the middle class.
    4. Wants to give yet another expensive unpaid tax cut to the wealthy.

    The list is much longer I'm just sick of writing it. Every single American should be ashamed to have Trump as president and if they're more afraid of integration or government healthcare than growing fascism in America  we are all doomed regardless.

    Honestly (none / 0) (#52)
    by CST on Mon Jul 08, 2019 at 03:54:09 AM EST
    Maybe it's just time to leave the U.S.

    There is a serious question (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 08, 2019 at 06:38:19 AM EST
    If this country has grown to stupid for democracy.  

    I can get down with the fact (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by CST on Mon Jul 08, 2019 at 07:33:13 AM EST
    That not everyone is super progressive and wants all this stuff.

    I can not get down with the idea that that somehow makes Trump an acceptable or better alternative or that we aren't a nation undergoing a real crisis of conscience.

    Maybe I am wrong on the politics, but that says something about America that I want no part of.


    If Trump wins in 20 (none / 0) (#56)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 08, 2019 at 07:38:33 AM EST
    IMO it's time to go if you can.   It's basically Germany in the 30s.

    I can't leave.  Too old.  Save yourself.


    Agreed. "..Germany (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jul 08, 2019 at 12:34:21 PM EST
    in the 30s" has been my view for some time. And, of course, "Concentration Camps for Kids" is but a part, albeit a horrible part, of what has, and will happen,  to the United States.

    It should be clear, or made to be clear, for those busy Americans who, necessarily, are hard pressed to make the day.  And, for Democrats, they need to quickly winnow the presidential contenders.

     While necessary to the primary, Democrats can't spend a minute more than necessary to decide upon and unify behind a candidate. These are no ordinary times, no time to worry about a "Biden Administration" as not meeting all expectations, for example. The stakes are too high to contemplate another four years of Trump (not an administration, just Trump and other miscreants and monsters).  

    The Democratic leadership appears to have jettisoned all prospects for impeachment and put all eggs into one basket: removal by electoral college. Hence, the Democratic candidate, whomever that is, even Marianne Williamson, has to be supported to the maximum.  

    And, the Democratic candidates need skip over details of proposed changes. Just broad brush ideas: universal health care, criminal justice reform, fair immigration policies, qualified and judicious justices and judges, restoration of alliances, measured use of force... etc.

      I believe it will be a mistake to get into the weed on plans and proposals.  For example, an effective Medicare for All program is complex taking many possible forms--and no one proposal is likely to succeed without amalgamation of ideas and political compromise.  So why fall on the sword over any one idea to accomplish an agreed upon goal?

    The more said, the more it takes to explain and defend against the socialism claims and other lies. Not that Trump is the model, but to illustrate, he promised repeal of Obamacare to be replaced with "something terrific".  That was enough, apparently--his deplorables hated anything Obama, and looked forward to their new Terrif-i-Trump Health Care.

    The time spend defending against the lies, needs to be used to warn about, and ward off, the Trumpian plague on our country.


    It's been a weird week for me (none / 0) (#59)
    by CST on Mon Jul 08, 2019 at 08:12:08 AM EST
    I'm actually in Berlin right now, after I spent the past weekend at my cousin's wedding in East Germany.  My cousin who just got married works at a university in Budapest that is getting kicked out of the country (the whole university) by the Hungarian version of Trump.

    There was very much a sense that this is a global problem. Every generation at that wedding had been through it before, and there's a strong feeling that the walls are closing in again.  It's kind of terrifying to hear from people who have been there.


    Part two (none / 0) (#62)
    by CST on Mon Jul 08, 2019 at 08:27:09 AM EST
    Germany is strangely enough a brighter light these days. Maybe because everyone has lived through it before. My Grandmother left Germany in the 1930s. I've been thinking a lot about that lately. On the one hand it gives me some hope that a nation can truly change. On the other hand, the cost...

    Canada changed the formula  to make it harder to immigrate from the U.S. after Trump was elected. My sister already tried. My grandmother only made it here because she came as an "Italian", we weren't accepting any more Germans.


    Unfortunately I'm in the same boat. (none / 0) (#66)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Jul 08, 2019 at 10:36:32 AM EST
    "I can't leave.  Too old."

    Or I would have left already.

    I have a sister in China and a cousin in Mexico City. I envy them both.

    You are right about about Germany in the 30s. Or even Paris in the early 40s. I watched a French film "La Rafle (The Roundup)" last weekend on Prime. It was about the Vichy government's roundup of Jews in Paris (at Nazi urging). The justification used by the Vichy French was to round up the "stateless," the "undesirables." And, of course, the immigrants. Once rounded up, the children were separated from their parents. The living conditions in the camps was horrendous. Most of the children never saw their parents again. Sound familiar?

    The GD movie could have been made in the US in 2019.


    Think that's hyperbole? (none / 0) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 08, 2019 at 07:35:44 AM EST
    New Post ABC poll

    Trump Reaches Career-High Approval,

    Overall 44
    Economy 51
    Immigration 40
    Health care 38
    Foreign policy 40
    Gun violence 36
    Women's issues
    Taxes 32
    Abortion 42
    Global warming 29


    That whole thing is scary (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 08, 2019 at 07:42:16 AM EST
    But 40 on immigration might be the real flashing red light.

    4 in 10 respondents "approve" of his immigration policies.  In spite of all we have seen and heard recently.  There is no ignorance excuse.  Something has gone terribly wrong here.


    That said (none / 0) (#58)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 08, 2019 at 07:48:19 AM EST
    I was this close to becoming a Canadian when Bush was re-elected and I was living in Canada.  This close.

    Then we got 8 years of Obama.


    Trump's handling of (none / 0) (#67)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 08, 2019 at 11:40:07 AM EST
    of immigration is the reason why Trump is popular among his base.

    That 40% has remained constant.

    It appears that Hillary was being generous when she said half of Trump supporters could be placed in a basket of deplorables.  


    The global (none / 0) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 08, 2019 at 08:22:17 AM EST
    warming numbers are surprising to me. It apparently is a more powerful issue than I realized. And the tax issue has to be killing some of those Vichy republicans who only support him because of taxes.

    Only in 2019 America is a 44% approval rating touted as great. I remember when Obama had a 44% approval rating and what the GOP said about that and it was nothing about how great it was.


    Climate numbers (none / 0) (#63)
    by CST on Mon Jul 08, 2019 at 08:40:58 AM EST
    Are a small bright light.

    44% is a lot more when you're disenfranchising your opponents.


    Well, (none / 0) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 08, 2019 at 09:24:13 AM EST
    the good news is we're not going to have to worry about that in MI and WI this time with new governors. Polling in GA had Trump losing here by 6 points but then again we have voting issues and certainly the GA GOP has no desire to fix any of those problems.

    Georgia (none / 0) (#69)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 08, 2019 at 03:29:22 PM EST
    I have heard that many professional Dem campaign people think that Georgia could go blue.  

    Perhaps this is due to large African American vote, but I think it is also a lot of transplants with college degrees, and a hidden Latino vote?


    I know 2 transplants (none / 0) (#70)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Jul 08, 2019 at 03:51:00 PM EST
    (stepdaughter and her husband) from MD who won't help you go blue. Both clueless millenials who voted for Bone Spurs.

    Stepdaughter says husband wants to put a stars and bars plate on the front of their Jeep. I replied don't plan on parking on my property if you drive up to visit again.

    I used to defend the stars and bars as "heritage" but quit the sh!t a few years ago. The symbol was hijacked some time ago by white supremacists and nazis. I DO NOT cotton to nazis in any way, shape or form.

    "Never stop punching nazis."


    Trump is about to give a speech... (none / 0) (#65)
    by desertswine on Mon Jul 08, 2019 at 09:43:41 AM EST
    touting his wonderful environmental leadership.  I, on the other hand, am about to puke.

    My first reaction (none / 0) (#74)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 08, 2019 at 04:44:15 PM EST
    to your post:  you are lying.

    I do not want to know anymore about this.

    Going Orwell...may actually work.


    Not lying (none / 0) (#78)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 08, 2019 at 06:05:37 PM EST
    Deere floated themes for Trump's Monday speech:

    "We are the party of conservation, environmental protection and expanding responsible, clean energy technologies while the Democrats' radical Green New Deal would outlaw cows, cars and planes, crippling America's economy and crushing the poorest communities across the globe that rely solely on fossil fuels to survive."

    And Biden (none / 0) (#71)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 08, 2019 at 04:06:59 PM EST
    does way better than Kamala or anyone else in head-to-head trials against Trump.  Not even close.

    Also, note the question of Trump vs. someone who is a Socialist.  Trump wins.  So, Bernie folks, there it is.


    Warren (none / 0) (#72)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jul 08, 2019 at 04:28:39 PM EST
    does a decent job defining herself as a capitalist, while pushing Bernie-like ideas.

    I think she can explain to some of the yokels that the corporate overlords are their real enemy, not the government.


    Could be (none / 0) (#73)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 08, 2019 at 04:42:50 PM EST
    But "explaining" could translate into "lecturing," which is the knock on her.

    No one is perfect.

    In a perfect world, it should be Klobuchar or Booker imo.  But they are in single digits.  


    From (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jul 08, 2019 at 05:06:53 PM EST
    what I've seen she has been very engaging, especially in retail situations. Impressive in town hall type events, don't know if she can pull it off in her stump speech, though.

    In a perfect world Hillary would be running for her second term.


    If Warren is the top of the ticket (none / 0) (#76)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 08, 2019 at 05:52:23 PM EST
    We will lose.



    The truth is (none / 0) (#77)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 08, 2019 at 05:59:21 PM EST
    I am becoming very worried that none of the current democrats can win.  

    They continue bringing a spork to a knife fight.  Harris is looking better in that respect but she is going to scare a lot of white people who will not admit she scares them skewing the polls and then vote for Trump.

    I do not believe the polls.  Trump and Fox will crush Biden.  10 points ahead is a joke.

    I am beginning to think our only hope is the scandals engulfing Trump.   And as MKS points out they could also save him.  Really linking him to Epstein would be a gift from god.  We can hope.


    I (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jul 09, 2019 at 08:10:35 AM EST
    am not so much worried about our crop of candidates as I am of not having a free and fair election.

    This election is going to be dirty on so many levels, probably in ways we can't even comprehend.

    The media of course will be complicit in keeping it close, with the coverage ranging from outright propaganda (FNN,Sinclair and talk radio) to inept bothsiderism(NYT,CNN) to sanctimonious preaching to the choir(MSNBC,blogosphere).

    We definitely need a candidate who can cut through the BS and IMO that is definitely not Biden or Sanders who are to much invested in their own BS, to even see the battle they would be facing.

    Warren and Harris have potential to do that, but Warren is already being tagged as "too far left" and Harris is already being tagged as too black or not black enough in more subtle ways.

    The biggest valid knock on Harris is her waffling on policy which might be a blessing making it easier to tack back to the center for the general.

    The biggest valid(YMMV)knock on Warren is she is too far left, but I do believe  she has the ability convince people that her policies are good for them, not that I expect the media to give her a chance.


    That too (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 09, 2019 at 08:27:31 AM EST
    Warren seems to have all the political problems of both Hillary and Obama, that is she is a smart accomplished woman and a professorial elite.  Or at least will be tagged as one.

    She has the best ideas.  I think she might make a great VP.


    The thing (none / 0) (#86)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 10, 2019 at 02:14:16 PM EST
    that I have the biggest problem with Warren is her years as a college professor. I'm just not sure that background makes for a good president. The smart accomplished woman issue doesn't bother me any but I'm sure there are those that it does.

    If (none / 0) (#87)
    by FlJoe on Wed Jul 10, 2019 at 03:34:14 PM EST
    you buy into the "bully pulpit" theory of the presidency, she may have the perfect experience.

    Zero executive or foreign policy experience is definitely a negative.


    Other than Joe Biden, (none / 0) (#89)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jul 10, 2019 at 04:28:59 PM EST
    the top contenders, at this point, are pretty much in the same boat as Senator Warren in the executive and foreign policy departments (save for Mayor Pete who is Mayor of South Bend, IN)

     Biden was chair of the senate foreign relations committee, but his voting was controversial: in 199l he voted against the congressional resolution for the invasion of Kuwait, in 1994, he was in favor of NATO intervention in Bosnia, and in 2003 he was among advocates for the invasion of Iraq. His executive experience is as committee chairs (e.g. judiciary and foreign affairs) and as vice president.

    Of course, we could replace Trump with a fire plug and provide stronger relationships among allies and assure national security and safety.


    Diasgree--strongly. (none / 0) (#88)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jul 10, 2019 at 04:10:04 PM EST
    Too broad a brush.  May be true in some instances, as it might be in any field.  However, it, in my view, is more likely a qualifier than a disqualifier.

     Senator Warren, is not academically inbred, having held professorial ranks at several universities, most recently at Harvard Law School. Her scholarship has resulted in a body of knowledge in governmental policy with recognition as  being the most cited professor in commercial law. Her text books are aimed not only for academic purposes, but also, for a general audience.

     In the senate (since 2012) she has been an advocate for stronger social safety nets, consumer protection, and economic opportunity. Professor Warren has applied her scholarship to the legislative benefit (e.g. Consumer Protection) of Americans.

    After Trump, the country needs, among many other things, to return to an intellectual underpinning and rational decision-making.  Moreover, as can be seen in Senator Warren's presentation of her plans, she is a teacher--another attribute needed to effect progress and deploy the bully pulpit effectively.

    While there are certainly reasons for not placing Senator Warren on top of the primary list, I think that having been a professor is not one of them.

    The last professor and University president, to be US president was Woodrow Wilson. Senator Warren appears to offer the ideas and creativity of Wilson without the bullheadedness. In any event, I am not sure about her candidacy, but I am sure it is not because she is a former professor.


    My comment about her being (none / 0) (#90)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 10, 2019 at 04:49:36 PM EST
    "Professorial" was not a personal criticism.  I'm good with professorial.  It was a political observation.  It was one of the most common things said about Obama.  The mouth breathers really don't like people who are smarter than them.  Hence, Trump.

    And they really really don't like people who talk fancy and use multi syllable words all the time and stuff.

    I think the fact she is a professorial woman would be even more troublesome for the poor things.


    My comment (none / 0) (#91)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jul 10, 2019 at 04:54:20 PM EST
    was more of a rare difference of opinion with GA.

    The (none / 0) (#94)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jul 11, 2019 at 05:51:41 AM EST
    thing is she can reach these people
    It was a startling spectacle in the heart of Trump country: At least a dozen supporters of the president -- some wearing MAGA stickers -- nodding their heads, at times even clapping, for liberal firebrand Elizabeth Warren.
    She has that great teacher's knack of leading her students to enlightenment without rote lecturing.

    Yes, (none / 0) (#96)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jul 11, 2019 at 10:34:37 AM EST
    I have noticed that she brings the listeners into her thought process, never talking down or lecturing.  

    I do think (none / 0) (#97)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 11, 2019 at 11:05:39 AM EST
    Her "downsides" are probably not greatly more than any of the others.

    Mine (none / 0) (#92)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 10, 2019 at 07:33:52 PM EST
    is not based on knowledge. She's well qualified and certainly knowledgeable enough to be president. My comment is based on leadership abilities and communication. Professors tend to have students who are smart and want to be there whereas that does not necessarily work well with the public. I think Obama burned me on college professors as president to be honest. I know they're not the same and maybe it was personality instead of prior profession. This is not all Obama's fault but when you have the public not understanding the difference between Obamacare and the ACA there is a serious communication problem. Obama seemed to think everybody was smart enough to figure things out themselves much like it's college but after Mango Mussolini it should be quite obvious they are not.

    Whatever leadership (none / 0) (#93)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jul 10, 2019 at 08:55:10 PM EST
    or communication shortcomings that may be ascribed to President Obama, they are not necessarily rooted in his experience in the academy.  And, actually, Mr Obama never held a professorial rank.  While an Illinois state Senator, he taught at the University of Chicago School of Law, with the title of Senior Lecturer.  An oversimplification, perhaps, but such academic positions expectations are that you have met your responsibilities when you have met your classes.  No expectations for research and scholarly activities---Senior Lecturer titles at UC are provided to distinguished individuals such as Judge Posner.  
    During the campaign of 2018, Mr. Obama referred to himself as a professor of constitutional law, and UC,when asked, asserted that he was considered as a professor.

    But, some former professors are good leaders and communicators---Professor Bill and Professor Hillary Clinton come to mind (University of Arkansas School of Law).


    Fair enough (none / 0) (#95)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 11, 2019 at 06:45:27 AM EST
    I'm just with Howdy on the academia thing. Of course, maybe she'll be different if she is president. I personally prefer the prosecutor type against Trump.

    At least Swallwell is quitting (none / 0) (#79)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 08, 2019 at 06:08:39 PM EST
    I guess so he can go back to his full time job at MSNBC

    Also (none / 0) (#80)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 08, 2019 at 06:09:58 PM EST
    It could really help if Amash runs as an indie.  

    On Epstein (none / 0) (#81)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 08, 2019 at 06:27:57 PM EST
    An interesting blurb from Bloomberg

    During the 2016 presidential campaign, an unidentified young woman filed a suit against Trump in which she alleged that he raped her when she was 13 at a party at Epstein's Upper East Side townhouse in Manhattan. Trump denied the claims and the woman later dropped the suit because, her lawyer said, she was intimidated by death threats. The Trump camp described her allegations as "untrue."

    There's a strong likelihood that Epstein will end up trying to flip for prosecutors as the reality of a lengthy prison sentence approaches, but it's unclear how much he has that would be interesting to the feds. If he has anything sordid or compromising that he's willing to trade about Trump, however, the president could be in for an uncomfortable summer. The public may be interested in that kind of stuff even if prosecutors aren't.

    The bit about flipping is interesting.  That's been going around.  But I don't remember hearing about the Epstein related rape allegation against Trump from 2016.

    Do others remember this?  Maybe it just got lost in the chaos


    Yes, (none / 0) (#82)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 08, 2019 at 10:08:09 PM EST
    I believe she was accusing both Trump and Epstein in that lawsuit. I found it kind of odd that she was threatened and felt in danger and pulled her case but now finding out what I am finding out about Epstein and how he hired private investigators to harass the girls and drove the father of one of the girls off the road I now understand that she probably was threatened with her life.

    As far as Epstein flipping, I can't imagine what he would have that is of value to prosecutors past more self incrimination. What they took sounds more like stuff for himself and it sounds like he possibly could have been blackmailing people.


    I can imagine him (none / 0) (#83)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 09, 2019 at 06:51:33 AM EST
    Having quite a lot.  Also, he is not the only possible flipper.  There 3(?) subordinates who probably know almost as much.

    On this I do agree (none / 0) (#48)
    by MKS on Sun Jul 07, 2019 at 09:48:00 PM EST
    Hmm, I agree at least (none / 0) (#49)
    by MKS on Sun Jul 07, 2019 at 09:53:37 PM EST
    on Item Nos. 1 and 3.

    Also concerned about free college for all.

    Kamala is good on the attack.  But on putting forth consistent and clear policy, not so much.  She is a mess on Medicare, giving at least three separate answers, none of which were particularly compelling.  And Medicare should be an easy win for Democrats.  Biden has this issue right imo.  

    Her attack on Biden on Busing was clever but a bit of a gimmick. She was less than clear about wanting to re-institute Busing today.  If you  do not want to adopt forced Busing today, then why argue about something almost 50 years ago, except to score debating points?  


    IMO (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 08, 2019 at 08:16:39 AM EST
    Biden's Achilles heel is his post partisan unity shtick and his longing for the past. Personally a much more effective attack would have been why didn't he get the GOP to work with Obama when he was VP if he thinks he's so effective at that. It's like Biden is blind to what is currently happening in this country and what happened the 8 years he was VP.

    I meant on issues Nos. 1 and 2 (none / 0) (#50)
    by MKS on Sun Jul 07, 2019 at 09:54:19 PM EST