By Jon Hall
Tuesday afternoon, Joe Biden officially announced his running mate for his 2020 Presidential campaign – naming Kamala Harris his vice president. Although not the worst choice, seeing as how Stacey Abrams and Susan Rice were rumored contenders for the spot, Harris certainly no longer has that “new car” shine that Obama did in 2008.
In fact, one must wonder why Biden decided on Harris – amidst widespread calls from the left to defund the police – with Harris’ record of “backing the blue”. This is especially pertinent considering the sheer number of “Settle for Biden” voters who are essentially voting for the VP given Biden’s mental acuity (or lack thereof):
The fact that this is a real Instagram page is a contender for the best part of 2020 pic.twitter.com/lYTXuTOwM2
— Lone Conservative (@LoConservative) August 9, 2020
This is a major problem considering Harris’s political career. As Attorney General of California, Harris fought against the release of a man who had been acquitted and had his conviction overturned. Daniel Larsen, who spent 13 years in prison for possession of a concealed knife, had not produced evidence of his innocence in a timely enough fashion.
Also as Attorney General, Harris challenged a ruling ordering California to release some of its prisoners after the Supreme Court decided that the state’s overcrowded prisons was cruel and unusual punishment. As District Attorney of San Francisco, Harris oversaw the city’s corrupt crime lab, where a judge ultimately ruled that the D.A.’s office ignored calls to take responsibility for the labs mismanaging and hid information about a technician who had been stealing cocaine.
Of note, Harris didn’t endorse prison sentencing reform which was a measure on ballots in both 2012 and 2014.
In 2014, a federal judge in California ruled that the state’s application of the death penalty was unconstitutional – with Harris fighting against that ruling as well. For her first run for Attorney General in 2010, one law enforcement group endorsed her with the rest upset that she had not sought the death penalty for an alleged cop killer. By 2014, almost 50 police groups endorsed her re-election campaign. Harris’ record also shows she is an advocate of the war on drugs and has opposed efforts to legalize marijuana. As Attorney General, she suggested expansions of the state’s efforts to track prescription drug users.
Harris has even defended – and laughed at – her choice to lock up the parents of children who were more than 3 days truant from school in California.
Kamala Harris at an event hosted by the Commonwealth Club in 2010, explaining her decision as San Francisco DA to get tough on truancy.
Critics of truancy crackdowns say such efforts unfairly target poor parents and children without actually helping students. pic.twitter.com/GKkDpayxuv
— Walker Bragman (@WalkerBragman) January 28, 2019
In a 2009 op-ed, Harris boasted about the lower level of truancy rates she achieved through her authoritarian practices. Eileen DeNino, a mother in Pennsylvania, died in jail after been imprisoned for not paying fines for her children’s absences. According to a lawsuit filed by her family, they allege jail staff knew DeNino had uncontrolled high blood pressure but denied her access to medication. This policy not only championed, but created, by Harris has seen the death of a mother; the very embodiment of the “little guy” Biden posits Kamala will help fight for as VP.
Not to mention, previous reporting by FMShooter has also pointed out Harris’ spotty record.
In January of 2019:
WarnerMedia, Alphabet Inc, and 21st Century Fox all gave hand-over-fist to Harris up to 2018 to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Notably, WarnerMedia owns CNN; Alphabet owns Google and Youtube; 21st Century Fox owns Fox News and its subsidiaries – the Establishment media has been funding and seemingly prepping for Harris’ 2020 run.
A month later, in February of 2019:
With Kamala Harris making her 2020 Presidential candidacy official, and the mainstream media doing their absolute best to paint her in the most favorable possible light, she has quickly become the front-runner in a very crowded field of Democrat candidates… The DNC has already demonstrated that they will rig the primary for whoever they think has the best shot at winning… Harris’s very questionable political history includes using an extramarital affair to launch her career, as well as her near-constant funding by the same big tech and media conglomerates she claims she will regulate…
As previously covered by FMShooter, the states that will decide the 2020 election are Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania… Florida is by far the most pivotal of these states – the 2018 Senate/Gubernational elections in the state were won by 32,000/10,000 votes respectively… Florida is routinely referred to as the “gunshine” state due to the large contingent of pro-gun voters living there.
Harris has a lengthy political (and prosecutorial) career where she peddled an “assault weapons” ban, universal background checks, ERPOs, and a number of other anti-gun positions that are not conducive to a winning platform in Florida… Her gun control platform is equally unpopular in rust belt states… She just doesn’t offer… a decisive pathway to victory in key swing states.
The vast majority of voters have already made up their mind for who they will cast their vote for in November. In states where gun advocacy is staunchest – such as Florida and Ohio – Harris will only hurt Biden. In Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, she likely won’t be of any benefit on the ticket either.
The 2020 election will come down to 1) turnout, and 2) swing voters in swing states. When it comes to turnout – who is really excited to go vote for a Biden/Harris ballot, especially during the coronavirus pandemic? As for swing voters in swing states, what could Harris possibly do to sway the opinions of the small number of voters in swing states still undecided between Trump and Biden?
Given Kamala Harris’s political record, it is far more likely that her presence will ultimately do more harm than good – which may very well be the difference in a potentially tight 2020 presidential election.