Kamala Harris is a cop


As the presidential electioneering starts up (way too soon, and mostly pointlessly), I can only hope that more articles focus on candidate’s policy history, rather than the usual glib stereotyping. Like this one, a discussion of Kamala Harris’ record. Basically, she’s smart, aggressive, and hard working — quite a contrast to the slow-witted sloth in office now — but she’s been consistently pro-police, pro-prisons, and anti-sex workers. Those are things that will definitely appeal to some voters, but not to me.

Next. We need someone to rein in the cops.

Comments

  1. Akira MacKenzie says

    …but she’s been consistently pro-police, pro-prisons, and anti-sex workers.

    Shhhhhh…. You might summon “them.”

    Oh no! Too Late!

    Mainstream Democrat: “YOU ARE BEING UNREALISTIC! THE POLLS INDICATE THAT VOTERS WANT CANDIDATES WHO ARE ‘TOUGH ON CRIME’ AND ARE OPPOSED TO LENIENT SENTENSING, NICE COPS, AND PROSTITUTION! YOUR CRAZY FAR-LEFT AGENDA WILL DRIVE AWAY OUR CENTRIST VOTERS TO THE GOP! IT HARRIS MIGHT BE UNFAIR TO SOME BUT’S WHAT’S A FEW WRONGFULLY IMPRISONED SUSPECTS AND PUT-OUT SEX WORKERS IF IT MEANS KEEPING A REPUBLICAN OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE!”

  2. numerobis says

    She won’t have my vote in the primaries.

    If she wins the primaries, I’ll vote for her.

  3. Akira MacKenzie says

    Oh, I’ll vote for her if she ends up to candidate. It’s just that I’ve been holding my nose so long it’s getting hard to breathe.

  4. asclepias says

    Completely off-topic here, but Akira, THANK YOU for spelling breathe correctly! I am so sick of seeing the noun substituted for the verb!

  5. Akira MacKenzie says

    asclepias @ 4

    I try. I’ve got a Journalism degree, so my grammar/spelling is pretty horrible, but I do try.

  6. Artor says

    I’d like to think that she would be competent at least, but she had a chance to nail that slimy weasel Mnuchin to the wall and declined. Why would she do that?

  7. Akira MacKenzie says

    …but she had a chance to nail that slimy weasel Mnuchin to the wall and declined. Why would she do that?

    “Bipartisanship,” “compromise”, taking the high road,” “decorum” and all the other sentimental vagaries that cause Democrats to lose.

  8. marcoli says

    Agreed. I am not excited about her, and worry that she might be a top contender. Then I will vote for her.
    Big worry: If she becomes The Chosen One then progressives will stay away from the polls in 2020. If so, then Trump wins.
    Another big worry: A competent Republican candidate shows up to challenge Trump, and beats him in the primaries. I think Trump should lose in 2020, but I am not sure about Republican Candidate A versus Democratic Candidate B.

  9. unclefrogy says

    I think one of the fun things to watch this time will be the reaction of some to a competent black woman who is not afraid to sound aggressive running.
    the deplorables should probably meltdown

    uncle frogy

  10. markgisleson says

    So happy to see you say this. With the exception of the new DA in Philly, I can’t think of any ex-prosecutors I’d like to see in the Oval Office.

  11. petesh says

    I’m not a fan and do not expect to vote for her (ever) even though I am a California Democrat (I don’t think she’ll get the nomination, but if she did I would), but two things:
    1. San Francisco cops have, I understand, never forgiven her for refusing to seek the death penalty for someone who killed a cop. That may have been a political decision, but I’ll take it. Sadly, she has defended the death penalty elsewhere, a reason I won’t support her, as is her work expanding DNA databases beyond reason and, in practice, law. I am party to a lawsuit demanding that at least they follow the law and delete the records of innocent people.
    2. Calling her a cop as an insult seems like bad rhetoric to me, lazy and insulting in a rather childish way. Especially in primaries, we can and should do better. It seems to have caught on, and I am disappointed about that.

  12. slithey tove (twas brillig (stevem)) says

    Our government needs a police~person in the Legislative Branch, too many there consistently break laws (dereliction of duty, is one, McConnell) and are given a default waiver. <–oh dear, That is my imagination speaking.
    Kamala has been a positive strong voice in Hearings, despite being largely ignored by colleagues.
    She needs to stay in the Senate and bring law and order there.
    I’m sticking with Warren for now.

  13. slithey tove (twas brillig (stevem)) says

    re @11: re [using cop as denigration].

    I agree with you. As you know it is due to the actions, and growth, of bad police actions, being glossed over as “law enforcement”. I know cops is normally a title of respect, it is the cops themselves who allowing the rotten apples
    of the barrel besmirch their title.
    essentially rock and hard place, the term is stuck between.
    thank you

  14. says

    I love how many people say they will still vote for her if she wins. For trans people that would mean we are screwed and lose our human rights either way. Trans sex workers die, more of us kills ourselves. This is why you need to get out and vote in primaries and make sure people like this do not ever win the nomination.

  15. rpjohnston says

    Can I get some context on the Mnuchin thing?

    I follow her on Twitter. I don’t think I’ve ever read a tweet I can say for sure was written by a human. Look at the difference between her, AOC, Schiff, Lieu, Waters, Pelosi, hell even Grandpa Schumer: They’re varying degrees of effectiveness, but they mostly or at least sometimes are identifiably human. But Harris’ tweets are all senate-speak on political stock phrase pablum (“deserve better”, “we should do better”, “concerning”, etc).

    Harris doesn’t understand communications. I’m afraid that if nominated, she’ll blow it because she doesn’t know how to communicate. I know nothing about her, because I haven’t seen underneath the wall of robotics.

    People whine and whine and whine about “what is possible”, “we just don’t have the votes”, etc. But what is possible is largely determined by force of will – We all know of the story of Goliath. Why are we talking, seriously, about a 70% marginal tax rate? because AOC grabbed her sling and slew that Goliath. Everyone else wrote it off as a non-starter, so they didn’t start. Over and over again, all the things that we want, just like that, are in fact POSSIBLE, if we just DO it.

    Harris gives me no confidence that she’ll just DO it. She’ll waste her time triangulating and looking for a already-beaten path instead of making one.

    I’ve been trying to like her for two years, but most of my favor for her is just running on the fact that she got out ahead early (an unpopular opinion, most people hate anyone who’s in before the midterms).

  16. mickll says

    Faux progressive front thinly obscuring an authoritarian right winger. She’s perfect for the Democrats!

  17. Ishikiri says

    I voted for Harris, and was quite taken with her when she first joined the senate. In particular, she was on an episode of Pod Save America where she was spontaneous and funny, even dropped a few curse words, and had some good things to say about healthcare and jobs. Ever since, she’s been sounding more and more like she only listens to her campaign consultant before saying anything in public and is trying to straddle a line between corporate Dems and Sanders-esque social democrats. I’ll vote for her if it comes to that, but I’d kind of like her to stay in the senate. I’m really not looking forward to 18 GODDAMN MONTHS of hearing about her, Warren, or anyone else’s presidential campaign.

    And for what it’s worth, I remember people complaining about her being too soft on crime when she was San Francisco DA.

  18. methuseus says

    @anna #14:

    I love how many people say they will still vote for her if she wins. For trans people that would mean we are screwed and lose our human rights either way. Trans sex workers die, more of us kills ourselves. This is why you need to get out and vote in primaries and make sure people like this do not ever win the nomination.

    The problem with your statement (besides the fact that I have not seen much on Harris to verify it) is that the Republican candidate will almost definitely be worse on trans and pretty much every other issue. So it’s vote for Harris who screws over trans people but saves healthcare and other progressive ideals, or vote for the Republican who will likely bring the boot down even harder on the heads of trans people, plus fuck over everyone else as well.
    I tend to believe you that she is anti-trans, and will of course verify before voting for her in any capacity. But I will likely vote for her if she wins the primary because, as I said, she would be better than 95% of Republicans. Like you said, we need to vote in the primaries to get a better option instead. Also, every single person (as far as I can tell) that said they will vote for her if she wins the primaries, has said they hope she doesn’t win the primaries.

  19. says

    @methuseus
    You will have to forgive me I am just sick of seeing us losing ground and of watching my friends slowly give up and/or die. I am tired of my community being the sacrifice to protect everyone else. I understand voting for her as the lesser of two evils. I wasn’t as clear as I wanted to be. I am more complaining about the fact that people are already acting as if it’s ok that we have to live with that choice. I want people to demand better before it comes to that. If people say that this is an unnacceptable position then perhaps we will get something better. I don’t feel that “I don’t like that but I am prepared to live with it” is a statement that will make the matter urgent for Democratic politicians.
    On Harris transgender issues: The article PZ linked is a good start. She opposed sex reassignment surgery for a transgender prisoner. She strongly attacks sex workers; a group where trans people are massively overrepresented. As many as 1 in 8 trans feminine and about 1 in 14 trans masculine individuals take part in the sex trade.Look at who murdered trans women are each year and you can see the effect of that. (Source https://www.transequality.org/sites/default/files/Meaningful%20Work-Full%20Report_FINAL_3.pdf). Her support of FOSTA/SESTA puts a huge portion of the trans community at risk and is arguably more of a risk than the military ban. (Source https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/59xzj5/sex-workers-dont-trust-kamala-harris-backpage-fosta-sesta)

  20. methuseus says

    @anna
    No apologies needed, I just was making sure that it wasn’t as clear cut as I thought you were saying. You’re right that we should say this is completely unacceptable and that we need to make that clear.
    I will admit a blind spot regarding transgender people and their issues. I did not know most of what you put in your last comment. Thank you for helping me see what you mean about Harris. I was not asking for you to give me all the answers, but I definitely appreciate the information.
    I always knew there was something about Harris that I didn’t like, and this new information you have given me just makes it clearer that in many ways she is progressive in name only.
    It’s so disappointing that she does so well with immigrant and other marginalized communities, yet is so against the transgender community.

  21. imback says

    One potential positive for Kamala Harris: her campaign manager is her sister Maya Harris. Maya is a lawyer who was once one of ACLU’s executive directors. She wrote the manual Organized for Change: The Activist’s Guide to Police Reform. And Michelle Alexander specially thanked Maya in her acknowledgments for the book The New Jim Crow for helping edit multiple drafts.

Leave a Reply