Left-wing organizer Saul Alinsky’s Rule 5 states that “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” Kamala Harris set herself up for a dose of ridicule by allowing this obviously staged picture to be tweeted.Pro Tip #1: Experienced cooks don’t leave the packaging for raw chicken lying on a kitchen counter.
Pro Tip # 2: If you want an article of clothing to appear to be something used everyday, wash it at least once in order to remove the “just out of the box” creases.
Stacy McCain’s Rule 5 states that “Everybody loves a pretty girl.” Here’s a picture that ran in the Carroll County Times several years ago when Mrs. Hoge was running a personal cheffing business.
Kamala Harris owns a handgun, so Peter Funt has written an OpEd for USA Today declaring that ownership of that gun disqualifies her for the 2020 Democrat nomination. I agree with Funt that she should be disqualified, but for a different reason. It’s not that she owns a gun, but that she’s told conflicting stories about owning a gun. She’s claimed that it was bought for personal protection when she was a prosecutor dealing with violent criminals and that she disposed of it when she left that job. But while campaigning in Iowa she said that she’s a gun owner (present tense), and a campaign aide said that the gun was bough years ago and kept locked up.
OTOH, Funt gets one thing partially correct in his OpEd.
[S]he has given voters a real choice: Back candidates who care enough about gun control to not own handguns, or support the only major Democratic contender who has one and won’t throw it away.
She’s not the only gun owner among the major Democrat contenders. Biden, O’Rourke, and Buttigieg own guns. But she does offer Democrats the choice of a candidate who believes that she is so special that the rules she would inflict on us shouldn’t apply to her. Such a politician would have much less conflict with her colleagues than one who thinks that everyone should play by the same rules.
Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris have come out in favor of allowing Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to vote from prison. Jim Geraghty notes over at NRO that position might be a tough sell in some parts of the country.
One of the underappreciated aspects of the 2020 primary is how many contenders have spent their lives in very liberal communities and states and have never had to calibrate their stances and rhetoric to appeal to voters in a place like Ohio, or Florida, or Pennsylvania. Kamala Harris had to appeal to voters in San Francisco and then California as a whole; Bernie Sanders had to appeal to voters in Burlington and Vermont. I suspect “restore the Boston Marathon bomber’s voting rights” would not be a popular rallying cry in much of the country.
Harris has hedged her proposal during followup questioning, saying that we needed to have a conversation on the subject. She added, “There has to be serious consequences for the most extreme types of crimes.”
Given Harris’ views on gun control, she may want to rethink her position. After all, when Tsarnaev was on the run, he was armed with a handgun, he was under 21, and he too young to be eligible for a gun license in Massachusetts. Carrying a gun without a license a serious crime in Massachusetts which would have required a one-year mandatory minimum sentence if he’d been tried by the state rather than the feds.
Some people have extramarital affairs. Generally, the cheating spouse(s) tries (try) to keep such an affair secret. Why? Well, the adjective cheating explains their motivation. Regardless of the outward cultural trends, most of us still have a core view of marriage as a monogamous partnership, and we still have moral qualms about one partner treating the other unfairly. That moral unease also attaches to the third party whether or not he or she is also cheating on his or her spouse as well. But that’s not exactly the issue I’m trying to address in this post.
Joan Walsh has a piece over at The Nation titled Kamala Harris Deserves Better Than Sexist Criticism About Her Personal Life. It’s tagged with the line
The 2020 presidential candidate has faced down creepy gossip about a past relationship for 20 years. It should stop—now.
I have no particular interest in any politician’s sex life per se. However, any information about a person’s behavior can have relevance on his fitness for a given job. Someone who has risen the ranks because of demonstrated competence is probably a better candidate for hiring or promotion than someone who advanced through unearned favoritism.
The Left’s neomarxism posits that all politics (indeed, all of life) is a struggle for power between opposing groups and that hierarchies use the false measures of competence as a means of oppression. Of course, most Leftists don’t really live their lives that way. For example they generally prefer to have their surgeries performed by successful graduates of medical schools. When push comes to shove, most people prefer competence.
The issue that Kamala Harris has placed before us is whether she is the best, most competent, candidate for President in 2020. All of her life, certainly all of her public life, should now be open for inspection and evaluation. Did she rise through the Bay Area and California political systems on her own competence? Or did she receive an unearned boost because she was someone’s “girlfriend”? If she purposefully engaged in such an affair to boost her career, how is that morally different from the corrupt predatory behavior exposed by the #MeToo movement? Does her career, taken as a whole, display competence or corruption?
Those are nontrivial questions, and a public discussion of them is now in order because of her candidacy.
During a hearing about confirmation of a new Director for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Kamala Harris suggested equivalence between ICE and the Ku Klux Klan. Recent data shows that over half of all ICE agents are Hispanic/Latino, and I doubt that 51% of the members of the Klan have ever been black. There doesn’t appear to be much equivalence there. OTOH, given that a recent lawsuit implied that Allen West is a white supremacist, such patently silly claims do seem to resonate with the Democrats’ political base, and Harris does seem to be running for the party’s 2020 nomination.