Kamala Harris: "Fierce Prosecutor" vs the "Progressive Activist" & Lara Bazelon's Big Fail

[ismnotwasm]

But as I set out to do the real work, I quickly found myself researching Tulsi Gabbard: that culminated in my last piece, “Tulsi Gabbard Looks More and More Like a Troll With a Glass Jaw.” And dear god, was that a whacky ride down the rabbit hole. She is not a very interesting person, but she certainly does what she can to attract attention where there is not much substance. Gabbard somehow manages to be utterly transparent and dissembling at the same time, making her appear to me, at least, to be a hot disingenuous mess.

“In her career, Ms. Harris did not barter or trade to get the support of more conservative law-and-order types; she gave it all away.” ~ Lara Bazelon, The New York Times

So recently, as I hear all the truncated criticism of Harris piled on and conflated by opponents, I have been driven to look closer, and oh, what I’ve found. I want to start with one person in particular: Lara Bazelon of The New York Times. Her bio says she is a law professor and the former director of the Loyola Law School Project for the Innocent in Los Angeles and she authored the January 17, 2019 article, “Kamala Harris Was Not a ‘Progressive Prosecutor’” for the NYT. I pulled up so many pieces on various aspects of the candidate’s record in California; time and time again, Lara Bazelon is the first reference, the place from which every other liberal “journalist” described as their baseline line for information. Obviously, I had to check out that article.

To say that I was dumbfounded is putting it politely: Bazelon’s article is so critically lacking in anything more than cursory research, so lacking in any nuanced, fact based analysis or even necessarily complex narratives, that I could have written this superficial hit piece in the seventh grade. A whole litany of California papers — The Los Angeles Times, The Sacramento Bee, SFGate, even Vox, Politico and fucking Wikipedia — provided a more thorough, circumspect view of Kamala Harris’s prosecutorial past. So while Bazelon was writing to a base already sharing her own narrow liberal lens on criminal justice, it is incomprehensible to me that she is any excuse for an arbiter of candidate Harris’s political character. So, Ms. Bazelon, let’s try this again.

https://medium.com/gayleleslie/kamala-harris-fierce-prosecutor-vs-the-progressive-activist-lara-bazelons-big-fail-1f679b70663a

[bigtree]

1. double take

...this is almost exactly what I explained to one or more posters here.

Almost all of the criticism of Kamala Harris' record comes from, or is leveraged off of the one, misleading article published by Bazelon.

If she had measured the net effectiveness of the AG's office, instead of blaming Kamala Harris for so many things she didn't directly control, or even have knowledge of at the time, it would not have been such an off-target smear.

Good piece. K&R.

[sharedvalues]

3. Especially when paired with boosting of Gabbard

Gabbard is clearly not someone we want representing Dems. Her cozying up to Assad after he poisoned his people with chemical weapons is enough.

It is no surprise the right and the Russians are both boosting Gabbard. We should not help.


Also always remember that the root rightwing public relations plan today is to split the Democratic Party on racial issues. The republicans are a party of white people, so amplifying racism helps them unify even as it shrinks their party. But Democrats are a big tent, so it’s possible to weaken us by getting groups within the tent fighting with each other. That’s why the right boosts Gabbards attacks on Harris. It’s why the right boosts “Walk Away”, a faked and failed plan to get black people to leave the Democrats.

[Kaleva]

7. People fall for what Mz. Bazelon wrote hook, line and sinker 'cause it fits their world view.

It's human nature to more readily accept with little or no question that which supports one's preconceived notions and to dismiss out of hand that which challenges a person's world view.

People don't like getting getting out of their comfort zone.

[Demsrule86]

10. I did research and no I won't post it...but there are multiple sources.

You can google it...after getting PO'd after the first debate, I looked at the stuff...I thought it was troubling.

[guillaumeb]

2. Recommended.

We can all see how the US media creates reality.

The US media created the "reality" of an unlikeable HRC, and we know how that turned out for the country.

From the article:

Kamala Harris’s record on criminal justice in California is complicated. Bits are tossed out into the ether like chum to sharks by lazy minds, because they fear Kamala Harris. They fear her unequivocal nature. They fear the precision of her mind. And they fear her unapologetic bullshit detector as the totality of their presence in the world is the sum of their bullshit. To be fair, I would say that about Elizabeth Warren, Kristen Gillibrand and Amy Klobachar as well. But Harris is a particular case because confrontation and precision of mind and speech is what she does best.

The US media detests complexity. One is either all good or all bad.

And Harris, like HRC, is very intelligent, and intelligent females run into the same glass wall that HRC did. What is seen as desirable in a male is seen as harsh, or strident in a female. And this transforms the female from competent to unlikeable for the US media.

[ismnotwasm]

4. Yes

I kinda am breaking my vow to stay out of the primarily forum, and I plan to enthusiastically get behind the ultimate candidate, but I get angry when I see those same tactics.

[Hortensis]

5. Interesting, but calling Bazelon liberal is wrong and insulting.

Liberal does not mean radical, and not all those on the left are liberal. The more extremist people become, the more dishonest they have to be to support what they believe and usually the more ruthless they become in pursuing their goals. Thus the less some on the farther left are able to respect and live liberal values.

Not that we're perfect, but concern for fairness and justice, as well as respect for truth and the ability, willingness and even desire to be honest are characteristically stronger in liberals, sometimes much more. When they're much less, as with Bazelon and her ruthless, relentless, and dishonest attacks, liberal is definitely the wrong label.

[ismnotwasm]

6. I do agree with you there

I’ve always considered myself liberal in most things. Then someone will come along and move the goal posts. Still a little pissed at being called a “radical” feminist, when all I want is human rights and body autonomy for women, and for everyone else.

[Hortensis]

8. :) That last sounds very liberal to me. It's the definitions

that are being corrupted to use against groups.

America's liberals today stand for the principles we have all through our nation's history. But scanning a few googled hits on us suggests we're not only as unprincipled and unstable as today's RW but, according to many insidious twists, just as conservative and corrupted. As Sanders keeps insisting, there's no real difference.

[ismnotwasm]

11. Exactly

I don’t mind labels per se, you know, wife, mother, Democrat. I do mind the manipulation and weaponization of labels. It’s annoying

[Demsrule86]

9. Baselon is an honorable person and does not deserve to be trashed by Harris surrogates...it won't

help 'Sen. Harris to continue to attack her critics...she needs to come up with some sort of defense against the accusations...some of which is coming from credible sources.

[Hortensis]

12. Demsrule, deceivers are not honorable.

Neither are those who choose to believe slander instead of seeking truth, whatever it is. And pretending or convincing ourselves we're totally sincere, truly believe our lies, is no excuse.

This is very basic.

[Demsrule86]

13. It is not slander...there is no question that some of what Sen. Harris did as AG and DA...raises

questions. Project innocence is a great program and has saved many lives What about the Death row inmate and the new DNA test? You don't find that a bit troubling?

[Hortensis]

14. I think we should all search for the truth. WHATEVER it is.

And even when you do, it's not cherrypicked bits and pieces that do not amount to truth but as much of the the whole picture as possible.

[Demsrule86]

15. There is truth to be found...and I hope Sen. Harris addresses it. She would be better off.

[betsuni]

16. Ugh. All anyone has to do is a little research.

Attempting to demonize Harris. When there are tiny differences between candidate's policies, turn them into an immoral racist monster with wild conspiracy theories.