Haumana wrote:I didn't vote for either of the two offerings this time out. I am not a big fan of Kamala from what I know but that is mostly because she is Newsome's chosen one. And he is too politically ambitious for my tastes. All image.jbird4049 wrote:
And if you don't like them, Feinstein's replacement is Kamala Harris. Honestly, I have not studied Harris' career much. That said, I think she is a politician's political DA. Making most of her judgments on the right political decisions, not the right judicial one. San Francisco's DA, and the state's Attorney General positions are elected, not appointed offices, but she is supposed to serve the people by representing justice. Not to be political whores. She did swear oaths to that effect. It's a quaint, even archaic, expectation, I know.
I think the same could be said in way for most of the Democratic Representatives. They'll keep doing the same politically expedient choices right even as they drown as the ship sinks.
He is a smooth and charismatic, isn't he? He is a fantastic public speaker. Slick too. I like how the funding for recent gun control proposition of his was set up so that any "extra" unused donations could be funneled directly to his election PAC.
He got cheap publicity by sponsoring a proposition that was opposed by the police unions, and much of the state legislature, because it not only restated legislation that had pass last summer, it added extra paperwork, and costs on everyone without adding enough funding to enforce it. And he gets to funnel money to his campaign for governor. Which is why even some gun control advocates did not like the proposition. But most Californians just love anything described as gun control. And if you are not seriously politically involved, or a political expert, or nut, you will not know about his shenanigans. Let's add devious to his description.
