Saturday, August 29, 2020

Begging For Caricature

This makes some sense. After the Democratic vice-presidential nominee gave a speech Thursday morning blasting President Trump, Charlie Pierce wrote

This was pretty much what made Harris the best choice for vice president on the Biden ticket. It is always the VP candidate’s job to be the monster back, flying to the ball and hitting hard—a heat-seeking, rapid-response weapon. ...  Harris has the prosecutor’s instinct for the jugular and the politician’s instinct for doing so calmly and with cold precision. Those two lines—Donald Trump froze. He was scared.—were damned near perfectly constructed and aimed. You know that, when the president heard a Black woman call him out as a poltroon, every demon in his demon-stuffed psyche began talking at once. The game, she is on now.

This, however, makes no sense:

"I think that there should be a thorough investigation and, based on what I've seen, it seems that the officer should be charged," Harris said in an interview with Craig Melvin of NBC’s “Today” that aired Friday morning.

Harris, a former prosecutor and California attorney general, conceded that she doesn't know all the facts of Blake's case and reiterated she would want the officer to receive due process. Asked whether she felt the officer's use of force was justified, Harris said, "I don't see it. But I don't have all the evidence."

"The man was going to his car. He didn't appear to be armed," she said. "If he was not armed, the use of force that was seven bullets coming out of a gun at close range in the back of the man, I don't see how anybody could reason that that was justifiable."

Let's run this through the clarity meter.

There should be a thorough investigation (and) the officer should be charged. There is no need for an investigation if it is already determined that the officer should be charged.

I don't see it (the use of force) was justified (but) I don't have all the evidence. If you don't have all the evidence- and you're a candidate for the second most powerful official elected nationally- you probably shouldn't suggest that the use of force was unjustified.

This was the Kamala Harris who in March 2019 told a crowd of wealthy donors "I support Medicare for All. But as you may have noticed, over the course of the many months, I've not been comfortable with Bernie's plan, the Medicare for All plan."

Harris had co-sponsored that Medicare for legislation. Nonetheless, her half-in, half-out stance was consistent with the Kamala Harris who supported abolishing private insurance, then opposed it, then supported, and finally opposed it. 

Call it consistent inconsistency.  There was another vice-presidential candidate whose selection was met with thunderous applause but whom probably ended up costing the presidential nominee election to the presidency, especially in foolishly trying to sell the duo as "mavericks" against the first major party black presidential nominee 

Kamala Harris is no Sarah Palin. But Sarah Palin wasn't Sarah Palin until Tina Fey of Saturday Night Live got the part down. Joe Biden, the Democratic Party, and the American people better hope there is no right-wing Tina Fey warming up to have a crack at Senator Harris. 



No comments:

And "Genocidally" is Not an Adjective

Respectfully, councilwoman, you've been punked, as the tweeter may have been. I was, too, when I saw the tweet with the associated vide...