From "Beijing Fell Short on Trade Deal Promises, Creating Dilemma for Biden/China missed targets for buying U.S. goods, but retaliating could come at a cost to American companies and consumers" (Wall Street Journal).
Do you think the Biden administration is tied in knots by lack of clarity? I feel as though I knew the response will be to do nothing and to go ahead and signal to Beijing that there will be no consequences. I would assume that the consequences that matter have to do with the effect on the elections in 2022 and 2024. Perhaps that's the reason to be tied in knots. There's fear that the failure to follow through on Trump's deal will hurt Democrats, and perhaps that it's too hard to explain that it was a bad deal... which the Wall Street Journal writer, Josh Zumbrun, thinks it was, as the article ends like this:
Going forward, Mr. Kennedy of CSIS contends the U.S. should push China toward a market-oriented economy—and not set purchase targets that effectively reinforce Chinese state control.
“This experiment was a failure,” Mr. Kennedy said of the trade deal. “It empowers all the wrong parts of the Chinese system that we want to disappear. It was a disaster and I hope that we learn the right lessons and never go there again.”
পোস্টগুলি
৭০টি মন্তব্য:
the U.S. should push China toward a market-oriented economy
Yes, let’s export our values to them. More trade with China will make China more like the US. What could go wrong?
Do you think the Biden administration is tied in knots by lack of clarity?
The Biden administration will do WHATEVER their masters (the Chinese) Tell them to do
Trump would have had a come-back to them. An in place strategy that would have already warned them of trouble if they were short. Biden's team is feckless and has zero idea of how to deal with China. China understands power only. Playing diplomacy games with them only makes them smile as they play along and manipulate us further.
Expect nothing but words from this Administration as they fault Trump for a 'failed policy to begin with'. I can already see it coming. Somehow the topic will become Trump. Not China. Not the Feckless Biden Administration. Not our economy, not our trade imbalance. Hell, it was an imbalance when it was slightly off a decade ago. What do you call a free-fall trade gap?
Anyway- we're paying China to steal our technology and build up their military. We must keep up our payments to our new Masters.
Best case, the administration will cut off imports and impose tariffs. The sooner we figure out an economy without the PRC, the better.
"Going forward, Mr. Kennedy of CSIS contends the U.S. should push China toward a market-oriented economy—and not set purchase targets that effectively reinforce Chinese state control.
“This experiment was a failure,”"
The failure was our much longer experiment to push China toward a market-oriented economy. For our own good we need to decouple from China. Companies are seeing that on their own, though I don't know if it will be enough. If not, I support government action to help it along.
Biden will do his best to screw the U.S. over. That what he does. Never under estimate Joe's ability to F things up. So said by someone who picked Joe as V.P. because there was no one else dumber.
"Beijing Fell Short on Trade Deal Promises"
Surprise!
"Do you think the Biden administration is tied in knots by lack of clarity?"
Well, no. But then, we cynics assume this is defensive propaganda, "lack of clarity" serving as the mildest possible euphemism to describe Biden's weak ineptitude.
Wouldn't want to undermine Hunter's Chinese deals anyway.
Never underestimate Joe's ability to fu*k things up.
In new and completely baffling ways.
The Biden admin is tied in knots due to a lack of brains and a lack of courage. And there is no Wizard of Oz to fix them.
“Lack of clarity” is a charitable description of the defining characteristic of the Biden Administration - incompetence. In the case of China the QuidProJoe factor also comes into play.
Any mention where human rights fit in all this?
Remember how Obama ushered the Dalai Lama out of the White House through the backdoors?
Biden is signaling he’s willing to do the same.
Trump would come out with an announcement of high tarrifs or import ban on anything made with slave labor or prison camp labor. Then he would have down something like announce a Taiwanese embassy, adding in a knife twist of "fair and honest trade partner, the country of Taiwan".
He would come at them sideways in an unexpected and undiplomatic way. And everyone would scream about him starting a war with China, even though China is the one doing all the nefarious acts.
Kennedy is a typical appeasement monkey in a Democrat institute. He uses diplomatic language to promote the same policies that have gotten us to this sorry state of affairs with China over the past 50 years. He represents the establishment interests in making as much money from China as possible while selling out American jobs and middle class. This is what Trump was in process of disrupting before China unleashed COVID on us. Biden is in bed with China, with the Hunter Biden deal with the CCP still in place,(does anyone care?) offering generational wealth to the Biden family. Treason by any other name.
The only problem for Brandon is how to give China what it wants without suffering at the polls.
BTW, can anyone name a single meaningful action Biden has taken that goes against China’s interests?
We could withhold our diplomats from visiting the Beijing Olympics. Oh, wait...
We could import more of their products into our ports. Oh, wait...
We could tell them we want cleaner products made by greener industry. Oh, wait...
Yep, it is pretty clear the Biden Administration will do nothing. Perhaps if we had more allies, but Biden showed our allies what he thought of them when he fled Afghanistan. At this point, we should be happy if Taiwan is an independent nation in 2023.
The Administration is tied in knots because the ChiComs have bought Biden and have the receipts for him. They are in a no win situation. Either they let the ChiComs off scott free for breaking the terms, and get destroyed in the midterms, or they hold their feet to the fire, and the ChiComs publish all the receipts, and they they get nailed in the midterms.
And at no point will what is best for the country enter into the decision.
There's a reason it's called "trade". When we buy a Chinese i-pad (made by slave labor, but so what) we send them some dollars.
The ONLY place those dollars can be spent is on the United States.
The Chinese can:
1) buy us goods and services which they are not.
2) buy US companies, land, property, which they are. Since they pay top dollar, lots of people like this but at a certain point it is too much. Perhaps we've passed that point.
3) they can lend the money to the US government to finance the national debt. They may say they don't but most pols love this. They get to use it to buy votes without having to actually tax voters.
Lots of private lending too, which recipients love.
The so-called "trade deficit" doesn't exist. We just want the Chinese spending their money differently.
The real problem is that they are financing the us government.
John Henry
It used to really bother me when people would say thing like, "Bush is dumb and Kerry is smart" (they were both in the top 5%) or "Bush takes his orders from the Saudis." Now it bothers me when people say, "Biden is dumb" (he's lost a step but the people around him wouldn't be there if they weren't smart worker bees) or "Biden takes his orders from Beijing."
It's fun to strike back at your enemies by doing the same thing they did. But it's not honest. If part of your self-image is "I understand things better than they do", you really should resist the temptation.
hes bought and paid for by china, like a local satrap,
In the 80s we had similar panty-wetting over the trade deficit but it was the Japanese instead of the Chinese.
One of the reasons for the so-called deficit was that the Japanese were buying up us companies and real estate instead of us made toasters. Also building auto plants in the us instead of shipping Fords to Japan.
That's worked out pretty well over the years for us. We get Toyota, Honda, Nissan etc along with thousands of other manufacturing plants and US jobs employing US citizens.
The people who sold Rockefeller center, Pebble Beach, Wisconsin dairy farms et al got a more money than the properties were worth. Then got to buy them back cheaply, at actual value, a few years later.
We do need to stop having them finance govt.
John LGBTQBNY Henry
If we send a million dollars to China for i-pads and the Chinese use that money to buy steel:
If the steel is shipped to China: no trade deficit.
If the steel is used to build a factory in Wisconsin - trad deficit.
John LGBTQBNY Henry
Roger Sweeny, I think you are correct in principle. I've always hated the Left assuming they are of superior intellect because of their degree, or where their degree came from, or how connected they are because their degree came from that university. As we all know, there are many kinds of intelligence, and many brilliant people coming from all corners of the country. Even Madison.
That said, sometimes the lack of intelligence emanating from someone just kind of smacks you in the face. And I know I'm not alone in this. They are morons
The Biden administration is tied in knots by their own lack of candor about how they evaluate the problem and the potential solutions
"China did not meet energy purchase goals" is really "China didn't buy and burn enough coal" Even ignoring global warming, coal is deadly. The Opium War was about China refusing to buy stuff that killed their people.
Back in the 90s whe the so-called trade deficit with Japan was allegedly a problem two very vocal companies were Chrysler and Motorola. Both had loud, not real competent ceos.
They wanted us government to force Japan to buy their cars and cellphones.
But, the Japanese cellphone network used a different protocol than the Motorola made.
The Japanese drive on the left and need right hand steering wheels.
Both companies refused to make products that could be used in Japan. But that didn't stop either from demanding that usg force Japan to buy their products.
Imagine how many Toyota would be sold in the us of they only made cars with the steering wheel on the right.
(I've never been an iacocca fan)
Motorola went bankrupt and split in two. A Finnish paper company (Nokia) now ons one of the halves. Actually, it's a lot more than a paper company but that's its roots.
Chrysler is now owned by the Dutch company Stellantis.
John LGBTQBNY Henry
is it now, I thought that fiat had bought it lock stock and barrel,
japan was not a hostile power in the 80s, just a commercial rival
“Going forward, Mr. Kennedy of CSIS contends the U.S. should push China toward a market-oriented economy—and not set purchase targets that effectively reinforce Chinese state control.
“This experiment was a failure,” Mr. Kennedy said of the trade deal. “It empowers all the wrong parts of the Chinese system that we want to disappear. It was a disaster…”
Yes, we were THAT close to making the Chinese adopt free market capitalism, but we blew it by negotiating reciprocal trade. Our new plan is to say words at them while having no trade plan at all, that will do it.
A market economy is undermined where there is labor and environmental arbitrage, and other single/central distortions that force false supply, consumption, and price signals.
Once again, I am struck at the similarities between hard core Libertarian and Marxist Economists. Both are so invested in their ideal concept that they reject any real world failure with some version of "the only problem is that True [Communism/Free Market Capitalism] has never been tried."
@temujin 1/2/22, 9:24 AM - Thanks for the agreement in principle. I find credible "that constant complaint from her [Kamala Harris's] staffers that she 'refuses to wade into briefing materials.'" But the writer then falls into temptation by saying things like she's where she is only because she gave Willie Brown blowjobs. Or when he says, "Our current occupants of the White House are truly dumb. They aren’t intelligent in the least."
That kind of stuff is sh*t when it comes from the bad guys and it's sh*t when it comes form the good guys.
“This experiment was a failure,” Mr. Kennedy said of the trade deal. “It empowers all the wrong parts of the Chinese system that we want to disappear.
Seems a tad hubristic to think that one little trade policy can have this much effect on China.
Roger Sweeny said...
'refuses to wade into briefing materials.'" But the writer then falls into temptation by saying things like she's where she is only because she gave Willie Brown blowjobs.
But aren't these both of a piece?
She didn't do well even in mediocre schools, never had demonstrated any particular competence at anything she has done. (has she? Perhaps you have some counterexamples?)
So being so mediocre, how did she successively attain higher and higher positions? It certainly seems fair to argue that it was through political pull, primarily Willie Brown.
I'll let you explain why brown might do that.
Mentioning golf balls and garden hoses would be disrespectful when used in conjunction wot the president of the senate.
John LGBTQBNY Henry
Roger Sweeny said...
'refuses to wade into briefing materials.'" But the writer then falls into temptation by saying things like she's where she is only because she gave Willie Brown blowjobs.
But aren't these both of a piece?
She didn't do well even in mediocre schools, never had demonstrated any particular competence at anything she has done. (has she? Perhaps you have some counterexamples?)
So being so mediocre, how did she successively attain higher and higher positions? It certainly seems fair to argue that it was through political pull, primarily Willie Brown.
I'll let you explain why brown might do that.
Mentioning golf balls and garden hoses would be disrespectful when used in conjunction wot the president of the senate.
John LGBTQBNY Henry
Is moderation on? My comment didn't post just now.
Apologies for posting it twice if you are modersting
"Do you think the Biden administration is tied in knots by lack of clarity?"
No. It's much worse than that. The Biden administration is clueless.
As my father used to say they couldn't find their butts with both hands and a flashlight.
Not that Harris is different from many other politicians of both parties in getting ahead via pull and connections.
But don't complain when those connections and their nature is pointed out.
John LGBTQBNY Henry
John Henry you overlooked one thing: the US Dollar as a world reserve currency. Everything you mentioned about how the Chinese spend their dollars is true but the US isn't the only place for them to do so.
As for intelligence, too often it is conflated with wisdom. I can only go with what the Biden Administration has done to date. I can't discern any wisdom in it's policies nor any measure of high intelligence in those in charge of administering the departments and agencies of the government.
The Biden regime has no real problem with China as long as the checks keep coming to "the big guy" and his relatives. Japan was too ethical. Also they did not have a billion peasants who would work for pennies.
It is not possible to 'enforce' any kind of 'trade deal' with any other country, unless you want to punish your citizens. As such, there's no such thing as a trade deal, except as the colloquial gentleman's agreement.
Any kind of agreement with China is nothing more than expecting Lucy to hold the football.
@John henry - Harris is mediocre for a high political position but mediocre at that level is still well above average. She had the political skill to bend with the winds in California, a tough on crime person years ago and a black lives matter person now. She's a two-fer, female and non-white. Had a fair amount of favorable media coverage as a female, non-white Senator from California. Actually ran for president and then when Biden basically promised to pick a female non-white to run with him, she had the biggest name of those who met his qualifications.
"...Mr. Kennedy of CSIS contends the U.S. should push China toward a market-oriented economy..."
Does this guy do stand-up comedy?
I feel as though I knew the response will be to do nothing and to go ahead and signal to Beijing that there will be no consequences.
@Althouse, I'm inclined to believe that you are only half right. The administration cannot simply do nothing and say nothing, lest this be used against Democrats in next November's elections. Since, as you surmise, the administration's instincts are to do nothing, it follows that they have to say something. At the end of your post you show one approach to saying something, which is to assert (without evidence) that it was a bad agreement. My political instincts are that this will not fly. So they will try saying something else. But, bottom line, look for them to do at most something entirely symbolic, for instance having a committee go off and look at the issue, but ultimately do nothing.
"The real problem is that they are financing the us government. "
The real problem is our dependence. When we can't provide our own medicine and our own military equipment we are truly fucked.
So being so mediocre, how did she successively attain higher and higher positions? It certainly seems fair to argue that it was through political pull, primarily Willie Brown.
Brown was no doubt instrumental in getting her started, which involved her progress up through the San Francisco District Attorney office. She was eventually elected to be San Francisco District Attorney (2003).
But it's hard to claim that Brown's political pull had powerful influence with her statewide election to California Attorney General (2010), and much less, her subsequent election as a US senator from California (2016). It's near obvious nonsense to claim that Harris' selection as Biden's VP was dependent upon the political pull of Willy Brown (2020).
She's female, attractive, Democrat, black, and has an intelligent public demeanor. That's what got her up those most recent rungs to the place she is today.
Do you think the Biden administration is tied in knots by lack of clarity?
The Biden administration has been very clear. They want China to be a member of the world community of nations and for the money between our countries to keep flowing unimpeded.
It's the lack of reality which has Biden's administration tied in knots.
The sooner we eliminate a dependency on our enemy, the better off we’ll be.
China does have a market economy, so far as the regime and close parties do not have a compelling interest to dictate a single/central/monopolistic solution.
I know that there was some adjustment to the agreement due to COVID, but it is interesting how little information there is in the article (never mind this comment section) about how the biggest global economic shock in roughly fifty years impacted the ability of either side to comply with the agreement.
Without that context, it's difficult for someone who is not familiar with the details to say exactly what policy measures should or shouldn't be taken. That said, I'd be a lot more comfortable by default with a Trump response to the question than a Biden response.
The ONLY place those dollars can be spent is on [sic] the United States.
@John Henry, point of information. OPEC oil is priced in US dollars, so the dollars do not have to be spent here.
Trump would have had a come-back to them.
Really?! Then why the hell didn't he do anything when he was in office about? China was already way behind on its commitment when Trump left office.
Any kind of agreement with China is nothing more than expecting Lucy to hold the football.
Disagree. Reagan got punitive tariffs placed on Japanese cars and trucks and Japan built factories in the US employing US citizens. That was kind of clumsy but it worked.
China was smarter. They stole industrial secrets, beginning with Clinton and Loral. Then they bribed US politicians and convinced the CEOs of US corp[orations that Chinese would buy their stuff. Cheap labor worked for a while but bribery is more efficient.
Trump would come out with an announcement of high tarrifs or import ban on anything made with slave labor or prison camp labor.
Again, he had four years and didn't do this. Why do you assume he would in his second term? He even told Xi he wasn't concerned about the treatment of the Uighurs.
In fact, Trump didn't seem much concerned about human rights at all (and made numerous statements advocating the use of torture and vigilante justice).
China was already way behind on its commitment when Trump left office.
Constitutional scholar Freder ignores the presence of Congress, which flipped left in 2018 and the alleged GOP Congress that preceded it was no help. Only Obama and Biden think you can rule with executive orders.
Constitutional scholar Freder ignores the presence of Congress, which flipped left in 2018 and the alleged GOP Congress that preceded it was no help. Only Obama and Biden think you can rule with executive orders.
This assertion is so patently absurd I can't believe even you believe this lie. Trump was as fond of executive orders as either. In fact the tarriffs and the agreement we are discussing were both executive orders.
Three more years of Biden, especially if the Democrats can steal 2022, the dollar will not be the reserve currency.
Nobody was as fond of executive orders as Biden's handlers. Hence his display the first day in office.
All Trump EOs.
List of Obama EOs.
According to Ballotopedia Biden had signed 75 by November 29.
Nobody was as fond of executive orders as Biden's handlers. Hence his display the first day in office.
220 by Trump, 147 by Obama in his first term (275 total). Biden's flurry in his first day in office was mainly rescinding Trump E.O.s. Thank you for proving my point. Usually you won't admit when you are just plain wrong.
Usually you won't admit when you are just plain wrong.
I try to provide evidence, even if it does not support my point. You should try it.
Both Trump and Obama (after 2010) did not have Congress' support. Trump because the uniparty was hostile. Obama because his actions caused him to lose Congress. We'll see how Biden does.
Critter said : ...
He represents the establishment interests in making as much money from China as possible while selling out American jobs and middle class...
-----
making as much money from China = what in hell does this mean?
? are companies actually "making money in China" selling items to Chinese market and repatriating profits to USA or are they "making money in USA" by selling items made in China at a good markup ?
John henry said...
There's a reason it's called "trade". When we buy a Chinese i-pad (made by slave labor, but so what) we send them some dollars.
The ONLY place those dollars can be spent is on the United States
False. The US dollar is the main "reserve currency" off the world, they can be spent pretty much anywhere.
For now.
Bidinflation may change that
The Chinese can:
2) buy US companies, land, property, which they are. Since they pay top dollar, lots of people like this but at a certain point it is too much. Perhaps we've passed that point.
When they "pay top dollar", they drive American purchasers out of the market, and / or force them to pay more.
Rising housing / land prices suck when you don't already own a home
The so-called "trade deficit" doesn't exist. We just want the Chinese spending their money differently.
Tell that to the US workers put out of a job because their company couldn't compete with China. Who now face higher rent / housing prices because China's using the money we sent them to buy up land and houses
dwshelf said...
Brown was no doubt instrumental in getting her started, which involved her progress up through the San Francisco District Attorney office. She was eventually elected to be San Francisco District Attorney (2003).
But it's hard to claim that Brown's political pull had powerful influence with her statewide election to California Attorney General (2010)
No, it's not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_California_Attorney_General_election#Democratic_primary
She had no real competition in the Democrat Primary. That happens when the political fixers clear the way for you. It doesn't otherwise happen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2010_California_elections#Attorney_General
She won the race, in a year when the Democrats won every single statewide office, by 0.8%
Every other Democrat won by at least 10%. She was carried across the finish line by the Democrat Party. Nothing about her victory was due to her
, and much less, her subsequent election as a US senator from California (2016)
Bzzt, again. The race was Harris, a black female leftist, against Sanchez, a white female member of the Democratic Party's moderate/conservative Blue Dog Coalition
In CA
In 2016
Again, the way was cleared for her. it was an open seat race, and none of the heavy hitters ran against her. Despite the fact that it being a 2016 election meant anyone in a Statewide office could run without giving up their current seat.
They didn't stay away because of her electoral prowess, not when she barely squeaked by during a big Democrat win election.
It's near obvious nonsense to claim that Harris' selection as Biden's VP was dependent upon the political pull of Willy Brown (2020).
The only reason Harris was picked was because she was a black female Democrat Senator. The only reason why she was a Senator was because of Willy Brown.
So it's an obvious truth that Harris' selection as Biden's VP was dependent upon the political pull of Willy Brown
She's female, attractive, Democrat, black, and has an intelligent public demeanor.
Seriously? What planet do you live on?
She cackles when she lies, see "it was a debate!" She was an utter failure in the Democrat Primary, where she didn't even make it to the IA Caucuses. Her public persona is as a babbling idiot, which is also her private reality.
She's an affirmative action sex doll.
Blogger cubanbob said...
John Henry you overlooked one thing: the US Dollar as a world reserve currency. Everything you mentioned about how the Chinese spend their dollars is true but the US isn't the only place for them to do so.
Blogger Big Mike said...
@John Henry, point of information. OPEC oil is priced in US dollars, so the dollars do not have to be spent here.
Both of you are correct but irrelevant. Yes, the Chines can buy Saudi Oil with dollars. That changes nothing except whose pocket they are in. Now the Saudis need to spend them in the US. Or buy Mercedes from Germany which moves the problem to Germany. Which Germany solves by Building a plant in Alabama.
Or, they can circulate without ever being spent in the US. Like the Russians did with their "Eurodollars" in the 50s and 60s. (Paul Erdman got a couple of great novels out of this in the 60s and 70s)
And if that happens, if they are never spent in the US, so what?
It is basically the same as Bob sells me a car and I give him a check. Bob, instead of cashing the check, signs it over to Mike. Mike signs it over the grocery store and so on.
Until the check comes back to my bank I have the car that Bob sold me AND I have the money. I have a debt that I am going to have to pay in and when the check gets to my bank. But until then, I have not actually "spent" the money.
Goldsmiths discovered this and invented Fractional reserve banking based on this principle 800 years ago.
At some point, the Chinese> Saudis> Germans in my example need to spend the money in the US. If they never do, why is it a problem for us?
We owe them some goods and services if and when they do decide to spend it. It is basically a debt. But until then we have the I-Pads in my original example and we have the money. If the money is never spent in the US Yippee! Free I-Pads.
John LGBTQBNY Henry
I don't care about a "trade deficit". I care about new cars being scarce as hen's teeth because they need chips fabricated on the other side of the planet. I care about the military needing chips fabricated offshore of our likely enemy. I care about that enemy being the source of the rare earth minerals needed by the military and every other technological device society runs on. I care about being told the live saving medicines I and my loved ones need are unavailable because they're made on the other side of the planet and can't get here because of supply chain issues, or pandemic issues, or whatever issues (the exact details being unimportant).
I used to be a global free-market fanboy. I no longer am.
Blogger Original Mike said...
I don't care about a "trade deficit". I care about new cars being scarce as hen's teeth because they need chips fabricated on the other side
I share your concerns. We could probably have an interesting conversation about this.
But this has nothing to do with a "trade deficit", whether it exists and, more to the point, whether it is a problem.
Only way to stop the problems you and some others mentioned would be with tariffs or barriers to keep Chinese goods out of the US.
Want to try that? Got some examples where it has worked out well for any country that tried something like that? Ever?
Japan supposedly prevented US imports in the 60s-90s. How'd that work out for them?
John LGBTQBNY Henry
Darkisland said...
And if that happens, if they are never spent in the US, so what?
It is basically the same as Bob sells me a car and I give him a check. Bob, instead of cashing the check, signs it over to Mike. Mike signs it over the grocery store and so on.
Well, the problem is that Ted, your next door neighbor, is now out of work because everyone's buying from Bob, and no one's buying from his employer. And he can't find a new job, because those dollars aren't coming back to the US buying manufactured products, so no one else is hiring, either.
So, if you don't give a shit about those Americans who want / need a job involving physical labor, rather than laptop labor, then it's a great deal.
But if you do care about them, even if it's just because you don't want to have to pay welfare to them and their families, it's a crappy deal.
Because America's better off if you bought the car from Ted, and Ted bought something else from Joe, and so on, all of them in America.
"Only way to stop the problems you and some others mentioned would be with tariffs or barriers to keep Chinese goods out of the US."
The point isn't to keep Chinese goods out per se, just make it profitable and/or easier for companies to site critical industries here. Is it "smart economics" in the sense of best-price and most-efficient? Of course not. But some things are more important than dollars and cents. Like not giving your enemy a club to beat you with.
Greg The Class Traitor said...
Bzzt, again. The race was Harris, a black female leftist, against Sanchez, a white female member of the Democratic Party's moderate/conservative Blue Dog Coalition
While Sanchez started out, long ago, as a Republican, she moved steadily leftward. By 2016 she was no more "blue dog" than Harris. I voted in this election, and had no preference. They both seemed equally nutty left. Harris was way more physically attractive. I contemplated sarcastically voting purely on such a basis.
Again: Willy Brown no doubt cleared the launch path for Harris, but she flew on her own starting around the state AG era.
Blogger dwshelf said...
Again: Willy Brown no doubt cleared the launch path for Harris, but she flew on her own starting around the state AG era.
No, she didn't. Because without people clearing the way for her, there would have been real competition for the 2016 Senate race.
It was the first open Senate seat in CA in 24 years. Are you really trying to claim that there were no Statewide politicians besides Harris who wanted that seat?
Are you really trying to claim that Harris's amazing electoral powers (she wins AG race by 0.8%, every other Statewide Dem wins by 10%+ in 2010) scared off those other contenders?
Since you were in CA at teh time: What did Harris accomplish as CA AG? She was there ~5 years before the Senate race started. What did she accomplish to giver herself electoral power?
My answer: Jack shit. She was a black female Democrat willing to do favors for political fixers in exchange for new offices.
That's it
That's all she's ever been, and that's all she'll ever be
What did Harris accomplish as CA AG?
What do leftists generally accomplish?
I think you're seeing a false dichotomy here. Either Harris has succeeded in federal politics due to her non existent accomplishments, or she succeeded due to an alliance with Willy Brown. Neither of those is true.
Harris advanced by getting voted for by Californians. She was supported by Democrats, both CA and nationally because they saw her as a rising star. A lot of party sorts were very disappointed by her dismal results in the 2020 primary. She ended up being selected for VP due to things which have nothing at all to do with either her accomplishments or with Willie Brown.
dwshelf I think your'e completely missing the point
1: The only reason she got to be the Dem nominee for CA AG in 2010 was because she was Willie Brown's sex toy
2: The only reason she won the 2010 race is because she had "D" by her name. In every other statewide partisan race that year, the D won by over 10%. She won by 0.8%. She was a pathetic incompetent dragged across teh finish line by others
3: Every single race she's "won" since then was a carryover from that base. No blowing Wille? Then she's not there, and doesn't get the win.
4: Her utter failure in the 2020 Dem Pres Primary demonstrates what she's capable of accomplishing on her own: Nothing
Black, Female "Diversity twofer", US Senator from the largest State in the Country, and the one with the most Democrat voters of any State in the Country
How'd she do? She got so little support that she dropped out before the first caucus.
Her total national support before she dropped out was less than the number of CA voters who voted for her in 2016 to put her in the Senate.
In short: ALL of her "rising" was due to WB's support, the second she had to operate where it couldn't pave the way for her, she utterly collapsed
Me: What did Harris accomplish as CA AG?
dw: What do leftists generally accomplish?
Well, they often create new policies and move things in a leftward direction. My understanding is that Harris basically coasted, and let the office screw over people she was supposedly elected to help.
IIRC, that was one of the issues brought up in the campaign.
Am I glad she coasted? Yes
Do I think she coasted for any reason other than her laziness and inability to do her job?
no
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন