Forum Thread

Is Kamala Harris a Progressive?

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 5 Posts
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    A Washington Examiner article brings up candidate Harris's record.

    washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/kamala-h...

    The article mentions, "In 2010, a judge found then-San Francisco District Attorney Harris’ office violated defendants’ rights by hiding damaging information about a police drug lab technician and was indifferent to demands that it account for its failings. It resulted in over 600 drug cases being dismissed." And as California Attorney General, "her office opposed legislation requiring her office to independently investigate fatal police shootings." Over 600 cases being dismissed.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    The article comes from the Washington Examiner, a conservative website and weekly magazine owned by MediaDC, a subsidiary of Clarity Media Group, which is owned by billionaire, Philip Anschutz. That would raise my suspicions about the objectivity of the article.

    Digging further through Kamala Harris's actions as both District Attorney and Attorney General for California, it would seem to me that the charges are marginal in nature. In one case she is defending the actions of he prosecutors in which she was not directly involved. I see many positives in Harris's legal career, and maybe a few that may be construed by some as not being tough enough, or others were she was too lenient. That goes with the territory.

    Without spending an inordinate amount of time going into these cases and making a layman's judgment, I am not ready to cast dispersions on Kamala Harris for not being progressive enough or not being black enough or not passing the purity tests of whatever group is examining her record.

    I will judge her on what she has in her candidate proposals to make America a better democracy for all Americans. And if I don't agree with her on all the issues, it doesn't mean I am going to refuse to back her if she is nominated. For example, I do not agree with her co-sponsorship of Bernie's version of Medicare for All, but that doesn't mean I won't support her.

    She is a formidable candidate and can stand her ground with Trump or any other candidate Republicans might put up for 2020. That's a big plus for me. I would be proud to have her as our president.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I don't think Washington Examiner would have a strong motivation to lie, despite its conservative biases. I used to read Weekly Standard and Liberty and the source shouldn't be discredited just because of its political views. If it was a general election between Kamala and Donald Trump then I'd vote for Kamala. But with the presidential election coming up next year I'm going to look at her past record because if we just ignore it, it's going to be brought up by her opponents on the campaign trail. I think we all know what happened with Mike Nifong.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Oh I'm not suggesting that the Washington Examiner lied. It is a reputable media source, but with conservative leanings. My issues with the article, and this also applies to the liberal media, is that we seem more prone to dig deep into a person's past for "gotchas" while ignoring all the good positive stuff a person has done and how they would govern now. I see that in MSNBC as well as Fox News and others...focusing on the negatives and ignoring the positives.

    In a sense it's why Trump was elected over Clinton...too much focus on her e-mails as well as Benghazi and not enough on the outstanding job she did as secretary of state and certainly not near enough time analyzing all her well thought out proposals in HillaryClinton.com. Instead I saw a lot of commentary about her pantsuits, her hair, her health and other stuff not important for a candidate for president. She had a hard time breaking through with Trump dominating the messaging on MSNBC as well as Fox.

    If one were to have taken the personalities out of it and just compared where they stand issue by issue, in my opinion Clinton would have won by a landslide. But in today's reality, we vote more our emotions, and those emotions are influenced day to day by what one reads or watches in the media.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Politico: Kamala Harris' big question mark

    According to Politico, Kamala Harris on the campaign trail has seemed a little unsure or hesitant on questions -- unprepared. That may be because it is early in the campaign and she has not yet polished her answers. Yet she was one of the first to jump into the race, so she should have been more prepared. We'll see. She can charm people but this race requires more than charm. Iowa is not California.

    As per the Politico article, her initial stance on supporting Bernie's Medicare for all and then qualifying it later by saying she would preserve private insurance suggests to me she has not done her homework. For me, that one should be basic. Shame on her.

    The seasoned Bernie Sanders, hence has an advantage over most all the candidates. Harris can catch up, but that's hard to do on the campaign trail. I was initially thrilled about her, but she's slipping in my ranking right now.