by the Opaque Senator
This week, we were treated with the news in the Presidential race of who Joe Biden has picked to be his running mate for the general election. Vice Presidential picks for the most part are interesting, but ultimately, meaningless affairs in politics. There are pundits everywhere who, to make news, will strategize how a potential pick for VP will bring in this state, or this constituency, or shore up this weakness in the candidate. The one thing a VP pick DOES do is show what type of person and leader the man or woman at the top of the ticket is. This is the first major decision a prospective President makes to occupy that office, and that is choose who will take over if the worst happens.
I can take you through the picks historically, but I really just have to look at the past couple elections. In 2016, Clinton made the choice of Tim Kaine, senator out of Virginia and former head of the Democratic National Committee. Most saw him as a boring, swing state pick to win Virginia and keep a steady, quiet hand in there to back up Clinton, but not overshadow her. But, notice I said former head of the DNC. There was a lot of information dumped about that situation. I’ll leave Snopes to go through it here…
But there is some legitimacy to the claim that there was some backroom maneuvering to get the spot as Clinton’s VP. Many know through the Wikileaks email dumps how Kaine’s replacement, Debbie Wasserman Shultz, aided the Clinton candidacy by stifling all competition. So what did this pick say? Clinton is the star, she is calculating, thinks ahead, but also not afraid to bend some rules to get her way.
What about Trump’s decision to choose Mike Pence? Trump’s very brash style was viewed as a potential liability to a key conservative voter base: evangelicals. The choice of Mike Pence, basically a religious zealot in many ways, was meant to shore up that voter base. There was a lot of talk in the background about how Trump wanted Chris Christie due to their familiarity with each other and their style similarities. Ultimately he had Christie head up his transition team. In my opinion, Trump had a pretty good lock in the voting block, so I don’t think that ended up being the only reason to decide it. This decision and the waffling back and forth on it very publicly, showed Trump was indecisive, looking short term for benefits, and all about instinct, feel, and ratings with his base.
Further back, we had Obama’s selection of Joe Biden himself. It is believed that Obama, being still a pretty fresh face in politics in 2008, and not much foreign policy experience with his background as a community organizer, chose Biden due to his long tenure in Congress and his great deal of experience in that realm. Delaware and Pennsylvania were also kind of in play due to Joe’s root in those areas, but not really in a big way. This move showed Obama was willing to see what his weaknesses were, picked a bit of an opposite person to him, but also an over-willingness to compromise principle and rely on his oratory skills to smooth rough edges. In 2012, Obama’s opponent was Mitt Romney, who chose “rising star” (oh yeah, where is he now?) Paul Ryan as his running mate. Wisconsin was his home state, somewhat in play maybe, but more a youth angle to entice some younger Republicans to get out the vote to replace a popular Obama.
The last I’ll mention here was 2008 John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin. This has been looked at to death, but McCain was representing the party of the hugely unpopular Bush Administration, and was tied heavily to Bush by voting over 90% of the time with his moves. Palin was looked at as a shock pick, shored up the pro-life base of the party, as McCain was a “maverick” centrist Republican. This move showed McCain was indeed willing to take a risk to win, but it again showed a shortsightedness and unwillingness to vet and plan ahead, as Palin had several meltdowns and challenges on the campaign trail. There were miscommunications on her vetting which caused further distractions and problems. Most of all, McCain was a septuagenarian who had cancer scares and health issues in the past. The Palin pick then received more scrutiny because the issue of age and health; maybe one of the most scrutinized vice presidential picks of all time. What if this person REALLY DOES take over? Will we be okay?
Does this line of thinking sound familiar?
Fast forward to August, 2020. Joe Biden has picked Kamala Harris as his running mate for Election 2020. Full background here…
Full disclosure before I move forward; I am a progressive Democrat. I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary season. I certainly have some biases, but I don’t think the following analysis is not incorrect. Now that is out of the way, what does Biden’s selection of Kamala Harris mean?
First, the age question. Biden is 78 years old; several years older than even McCain was. Many accounts from people left, right, and center who have watched him, seen him in person, believe he may have lost a step from his political prime. Harris is a young, African American female, so on a physical scale, much like Obama before him, Joe has picked an opposite. Harris is a veteran politician whose served as a senator from the most populous state in the country, California. Prior to that, she served as the state’s Attorney General. On these fronts, there looks to be balance; east coast and west coast politicians, old and young, black and white. One refrain you will hear is, “This ticket looks like America” if I had to guess.
Those differences end at those physical and location-based traits though. Sources close to Biden, as have been widely reported, say that he was looking for someone similar to him and how he was with Obama in 2008. He values loyalty and relationship above all else. Reportedly, he took his time vetting candidates for this, and spent time with them. He came away with Kamala. She certainly has some clout, she had some high profile moments using those prosecutorial skills to vet Brett Kavanaugh for his position on the Supreme Court, as well as William Barr. Here’s a clip of the Barr exchange…
There’s value in that skill. However, being a prosecutor, you do not have many opportunities to play defense, to be on point off the cuff about your own record. And that ultimately is what doomed her candidacy when she ran for President (her campaign didn’t even make it to the first primary). Here’s the full exchange below…
This exchange is my biggest problem with Harris. To this day, she has never addressed these points head on. If you look at polling leading up to this moment and after, she goes from a top tier candidate to right off of a cliff. Gabbard’s attack was effective. When Kamala did muster some type of response days later, again she did not address her record, she attacked Tulsi for being “an Assad apologist” because they had met before, which Tulsi in turn, addressed directly with the facts of the situation and said on Chris Cuomo’s CNN show “she still hasn’t defended (her record).” During the upcoming election, Republicans will seize on this moment in their ads Speaking of advertising, the remainder of this campaign season will unfold unlike any other in our nation’s history. Large campaign events will be a thing of the past, there will be a lot of digital advertising, connecting through social media and Zoom, the convention will be fully online, all due to the raging pandemic. Her advertising strategy was weak. Her campaign for President was also fraught with mismanagement, relying on family members to run it. More context here…
As the article shows, her top campaign aides (that are not in her family) mostly blamed her. For comparison, for those even passively following Ellen DeGeneres’ fall from grace, even there her employees and superiors have mostly spared her from direct criticism, with a few notable exceptions. Harris did not even get that benefit. And this isn’t her first campaign, she is a sitting senator after all. So she’s not bringing great strength to what remains of a campaign trail.
The other major event for Kamala will be here one-on-one debate with Mike Pence. Now, I showed how her debate performance went. True, to many, Tulsi’s hit came as a surprise I’m sure, though when you’re a front runner you need to be able to handle yourself. She also has a lot of time to prepare for this moment with Pence. But, so does Pence, and for those who do not remember, Pence was seen pretty handily as the winner of the Vice Presidential debate against Tim Kaine. If you want a mid-article laugh, here you go…
An argument could be made that it legitimized the Trump train, that at least someone competent would be backing him up. In reality, Pence lied a lot about his record and Trump’s, but Kaine was obtuse, constantly sounding like he was whining about those positions and he was not fast enough or well-versed enough on the issues to competently take Pence down the notches he needed to. We can expect more of the same.
So, for every short term strategy and strength/weakness comparison to be made, Kamala seems like a weak choice. California is a solidly Democratic state, so she’s not in swing state territory. So what about the long game?
Biden is widely seen as likely only serving one term as President. This VP pick is seen as leaving room for him to create an heir-apparent. And her and Biden have a lot in common being more on the centrist to center-right side of the political ladder. We already mentioned her dubious record on crime, which Biden shares with his vote for the now widely panned Crime bill. Which brings us to the issue of policing. This is a seminal issue currently, and will be for years to come. And Biden has chosen someone with a pretty hard-line record in convicting non-violent offenders. I’ve watched many liberals and Democrats decry police brutality, and many of those same people are celebrating the Harris pick. This is deeply concerning as Tulsi said so eloquently. When that record gets in front of more of the voting public as we near election day, how we she talk about it? Will she be remorseful? Has not been so yet. Will she want to see changes? Has not put forward any yet.
What about foreign policy? Often, vice presidents are seen as taking a more global role on the international stage meeting with leaders. True, I certainly trust Harris to do this over Trump and his appointees. But experience in it? There’s little. She’s been all over the map on health care, at first being for Medicare for All (which at the time of this writing sees over 56% of voters favor switching to a plan like this…
…but then later back tracking. And she has also been very pro-corporate power consolidation. Prison reform is another issue that will need tackled. She has posted some support for the Green New Deal, or at least elements of it.
At best, it is a mixed bag. But is this really a solid enough heir-apparent to an aging, possibly diminished candidate in Joe Biden? That’s the question to be asking. Kamala is likely going to be either in charge as President if Biden has a health failing, or if he makes 4 years, would be the one to take over the mantle of leadership in the Democratic Party. To this point, I do not think we have seen enough from her to earn that mantle. Would not a choice like Elizabeth Warren, who has shown capacity to plan, execute, and organize well, and has strong progressive bonafides, not have been a better pick? How about Tammy Duckworth? Gretchen Whitmer? Stacey Abrams also would be a good choice. Though a little inexperienced, her background with education and voting rights is solid, and she draws a heck of a contrast to Brian Kemp, who has been credibly accused basically of disenfranchising voters to win. Another Georgian, Keisha Lance Bottoms the Atlanta Mayor, would be an excellent pick having run a large city and having a strong record.
Or, why not the woman who ended Kamla’s bid for President, Tulsi Gabbard? She’s a strong debater, supported Biden when she left the race, goes on both liberal and conservative channels to make progressive and democratic cases for policy, she is actively serving in the National Guard while also serving in the House of Representatives, as the first Hindu. She is a woman of color, as representation I think is an important factor to be considered in our leadership structure today, especially with an aging white male at the top of the ticket. She was able to run a lean campaign in a crowded Democratic field, using social media effectively. She has both progressive and conservative bona fides. How did her vetting go?
Oh, wait, she was not even considered. And this is my chief problem with what this Biden selection means for his decision making capacity. In his long career in Congress, on nearly every major issue, from busing (thanks for pointing that out Kamala), to the Crime Bill, to the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill hearings, to the Iraq War vote, his political instincts have seemingly always led to a poor choice. And this is a possibility I see with Harris. This is completely my opinion based on the facts and figures at hand. Unfortunately, the choice this election are this situation, which despite my analysis, is this or more of the Trump Administration. The pandemic has shined a pretty bright light on how political inexperience and ineffective communication makes choices so clear. The pandemic response, the protest response, the handling of divisions, the abdication of leadership on the global stage, retreating from the Iran Nuclear Deal, trying to end the ACA during the pandemic, the leaving the global climate accords, the abject cronyism in all levels of government, the continued violations of the Emoluments Clause, the first in history unpopular tax cuts due to how broken and favorable they were to the wealthy, the revolving door of people leaving the inner circle and claiming chaos and nabbing book deals, it all just screams abject failure from top to bottom. Trump’s saving grace for much of this has been incompetence in Democratic leadership, and his tying his success to how well the economy and stock market have performed. Funny thing though, President’s have very little control over those numbers. I’ve predicted since his election that the economy would be tanking by the time 2020 rolled around, and due to the pandemic it appears that prediction has been correct. It will be hard for Joe Biden to be worse than where we have been the last 4 years. I am hopeful for positive breakthroughs, and a progressive push in the right direction.
In this truly opaque world, I hope this makes things a little more clear….
Eww, Politics 