Nevertheless, she persisted.
Barring an amazing candidate like Obama, I’m skeptical that a person from a blue state with minimal experience has what it takes to win nationally. I think there’s a reason that all successful Democrats between LBJ and Clinton came from the South. Harris as VP though, or just a VP candidate, would give her national experience, at least poiltically. Even a failed Presidential run can be a valuable experience builder for at least the politics of running for President.
Well, especially with Republicans, they usually fail at a Presidential run before succeeding. I don’t think you can really judge a GOP Presidential prospect until they’ve failed twice.
I just don’t see a future for the Castros. They can’t win statewide, and they aren’t really getting any accomplishments done. Julian got a placeholder job to get him DC experience and didn’t particularly distinguish himself. He was a solid HUD Sec, but in a department like that you need to make major improvements to justify something bigger. If the party is serious about developing him, he should serve in a more high profile post in the next Dem administration.
Harris’ militancy is a problem not because she’s a woman, but because her record can easily be portrayed as politicizing cases where justice is supposed to be blind. She was part of a wave of Democrat state AGs who went on crusades against nontraditional AG causes like global warming instead of things like sex trafficking and organized crime. We can argue elsewhere about how justified such charges would be against her, but if I’m doing oppo research on her that’s the first thing I focus on. And that was a major accusation against the Obama administration was politicization at Justice. So you get a twofer there, not only do you pin that charge on Harris, but it starts to look like a pattern of behavior against Democrats in general.
Yes, she should have stayed in her place. We get that.
It’s possible to criticize a female politician absent any indication of sexism. At least, it should be.
Harris is terrible at a minimum for her role in activating the CA microstamping law, banning the sale of all new model semi auto firearms in the state. Combine that with her self aggrandizement and grandstanding, it’s disappointing she’s one of my senators. In her role as Attorney General, I always got the sense that she was running for her next political office, similar to Ted Cruz running for president right after he became a senator. It’s typical, yet unseemly.
There are other issues, yanno. And not everyone agrees with you on the only one you think matters.
Now, imagine her as a white man and see what your assessment is, okay?
I’m sure that not everyone agrees with me. My efforts at persuasion are not that powerful! If Harris were a white man that took the same actions, yeah, I’d be against them too. Arnold S. was the one that signed the law in 2007, and Harris activated it based on a flimsy rationale. As Arnold isn’t eligible for president, he’s kind of off the table.
Do you think it’s possible to criticize a female politician without being sexist?
So she wouldn’t win the **Bone **Primary. But there’s well over a hundred million other voters, and none needs to cater to you personally. Can you get over yourself and assess how a majority of the rest might respond?
We should have a vote!
The white man, the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, certainly would have prevented Kevin from asking questions and then immediately talking over the answers.
Nice try, though.
Certainly? You’re certain of that? You’ve never seen a white male senator get away with interrupting a witness?
Okay then.
Over and over again? A freshman Senator who might not quite have learned the rules of decorum yet or decided that they didn’t matter?
At least as certain as you seem to be that it was motivated by sexism.
Have you never seen a witness interrupted? If you did, what happened?
Only in the context of judicial trials, and there weren’t many, partly (I think) because the attorneys generally knew better and partly because I haven’t seen that many cases. But I can’t remember any instances as blatant and repeated as Harris’ that the judge didn’t restrain the questioning attorney to allow the witness to answer.
And, just to be clear, I have seen such instances of the attorney interrupting the witness.
So your *certainty *about how Senators behave on camera is based on nothing. Coulda just said so.
Really? Nothing, huh? I just told you what it’s based on. Oddly enough, the action by Sen. Burr mirrored the actions of the judges, as did the behaviors of the ‘transgressors’ (though admittedly I can’t recall an instance as egregious as Harris’). Can you really not see that relation?
But then you have knowledge of Burr’s motivations, right? And you’re certain about them. With as yet no support whatsoever. How many of these types of instances have you seen in Senate hearings? And, speaking of which, did you even see Harris’ complete questioning of Sessions?
Harris is actually benefitting in this case from being a woman. Do you see any of the white male state AGs who have been politicizing their offices being touted as potential stars?
Surely by now you’ve seen Lindsay Graham’s questioning of Trump’s nominee for FBI Director, Christopher Wray? I watched the whole thing. Hardly a freshman senator, and Graham interrupted Wray at least 4 times. No one said a thing about it as it happened.
Which is, of course, evidence that Burr, who doesn’t sit on Judiciary, was being sexist in stopping Harris.
I never said that. People can draw their own conclusions. I was simply pointing out a very recent instance of a not-freshman senator doing exactly the same thing Harris was doing – and not getting called on it. You said you couldn’t remember any instances of such “blatant and repeated” behavior. I merely pointed you to one.