Staff Reports
Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign continues to flounder, and it’s not just her awkward public appearances or charming stumbles on the campaign trail that have observers scratching their heads. The Vice President’s inability to take a definitive stand on key issues is raising eyebrows and could very well be her Achilles’ heel, especially in the wake of her recent behavior over California’s Proposition 36.
In a move that could send shivers down the spine of her campaign team, Harris dodged questions about her vote on Proposition 36—a measure aimed at combating California’s skyrocketing crime rates, particularly in her old stomping grounds of San Francisco. This ballot measure seeks to upgrade certain drug and theft-related crimes into felony offenses, thereby sending a clear message to repeat offenders. While supporters see it as a necessary step to restore law and order, the Vice President’s strategic silence leaves one wondering if she’s just trying to dance around her progressive roots or if she’s quietly tacking back to the center.
"Harris won’t say how she voted on California measure that would reverse criminal justice reforms" – can’t risk losing votes from key constituents- career criminals. https://t.co/waeShTueEy
— Itsallright (@Itsallright68) November 3, 2024
Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has consistently tried to undermine the initiative, put forth alternative bills to confuse potential voters. However, his efforts have largely fizzled out, suggesting that even the powers that be within the Democratic establishment are unsure about keeping crime in check. Newsom may have publicly offered to let the voters have their say, but his apparent disdain for the measure casts a shadow over their party’s credibility in dealing with crime.
On the campaign trail, Harris acknowledged having submitted her absentee ballot but was quick to sidestep inquiries about her stance on Proposition 36. Clearly opting for an escape route to avoid committing to a position, her ambivalence fuelled speculation about her desire to market herself as a tough-on-crime prosecutor while simultaneously keeping progressive supporters content. It’s a classic Harris tactic: appeal to both sides while hoping no one notices the contradictions.
This duality isn’t limited to crime. Recent reports reveal that her campaign is marketing conflicting messages regarding the Israel-Palestinian conflict. In a campaign ad aimed at Jewish voters, Harris reassures them of her unwavering support for Israel’s right to defend itself. Meanwhile, ads targeting Michigan’s Arab American demographic highlight the plight of Gaza, emphasizing the “devastation” there and showcasing her efforts to alleviate suffering. Clearly, her aim is to tailor her message to fit different audiences; however, that kind of flexibility often translates to a lack of resolve—a trait that could spell disaster in the polls come election day.
The peril of playing both sides is that voters are not easily fooled. A campaign built on half-measures and vague promises is unlikely to inspire confidence well before the ballots are counted. With Harris unwilling to take a definitive stance on critical issues like crime and international relations, the question looms large: can she win over voters who demand clarity and conviction? As her campaign barrels toward the finish line, all eyes will be on whether her fence-straddling approach can hold up against the tidal wave of the electorate’s growing frustrations.
