Whatever Harris did as a prosecutor seems reasonable given both the context of the time she during which was a prosecutor, and her overall political alignment. I would rather have a progressive presidential candidate like Bernie (too late), or AOC (maybe 2028 or later). But choosing Harris means that the overall “liberal” agenda stays on the table
Some highlights from the article
Harris, as part of her previous presidential campaign, also released a criminal justice reform plan that seeks to scale back incarceration, end the death penalty and solitary confinement, ban private prisons, and get rid of cash bail. Biden also backs a fairly aggressive criminal justice reform plan, despite his own mixed record on criminal justice issues.
A close examination of Harris’s record shows it’s filled with contradictions. She pushed for programs that helped people find jobs instead of putting them in prison, but also fought to keep people in prison even after they were proved innocent. She refused to pursue the death penalty against a man who killed a police officer, but also defended California’s death penalty system in court. She implemented training programs to address police officers’ racial biases, but also resisted calls to get her office to investigate certain police shootings.
But what seem like contradictions may reflect a balancing act. Harris’s parents worked on civil rights causes, and she came from a background well aware of the excesses of the criminal justice system — but in office, she played the role of a prosecutor and California’s lawyer. She started in an era when “tough on crime” politics were popular across party lines — but she rose to national prominence as criminal justice reform started to take off nationally. She had an eye on higher political office as support for criminal justice reform became de rigueur for Democrats — but she still had to work as California’s top law enforcement official.
Harris also pushed for more systemic reforms. Her most successful program as district attorney, “Back on Track,” allowed first-time drug offenders, including drug dealers, to get a high school diploma and a job instead of prison time. Adams, Harris’s previous spokesperson, noted that the program started in 2005, “when most prosecutors were using a ‘tough on crime’ approach.”
So what you’re saying is that you already knew she was a problematic and unpopular choice but you are going to accuse anyone who voices that of supporting baby rape because you think any attempt to find a better candidate helps Trump. I think forcing a bad choice without any level of discussion helps Trump but I still don’t think you support baby rape.
I’m saying that:
Seems fair?
Until and unless someone steps up to challenge her and we know who is willing to throw their hat in the ring we can’t really support a specific candidate. All we have is speculation and who I’d like. Blind loyalty and immediately falling in line obscures the true picture for how much support she has and makes it less likely that a challenger will step forward. We need a real conversation about Harris’s candidacy and to know if anyone will challenge her for the nomination. Elizabeth Warren is who I want with Bernie as my second choice but I don’t see either of them as a real possibility because of their age. Let’s see if someone closer to them is willing to fight for the nomination before falling in line.
Wasn’t aware I was “falling in line.” That’s a very weird and specific characterization.