Editorial other views

The following editorial published Aug. 11 in the Wall Street Journal:

In choosing Kamala Harris as his running mate on Tuesday, Joe Biden checked the essential boxes his party had demanded—a woman, a minority, and a progressive who has moved left as the Democratic Party has. We’ll see how the California Senator plays in the swing-state suburbs that Mr. Biden needs to defeat President Trump.

Mr. Biden’s choice is especially important because he would be the oldest President on Inauguration Day at age 78. The actuarial tables and his declining mental acuity suggest he wouldn’t run for re-election, assuming he lasts a full term. Americans who have watched Mr. Biden on the campaign trail—and the way his advisers protect him from media questioning—are smart enough to know that in voting for Mr. Biden they’re also voting for his running mate as a likely President.

Ms. Harris is most appealing as an example of American upward mobility, especially for immigrants. Her father is a Jamaican-born Stanford economist. Her Indian-born mother was a breast cancer researcher at the University of California, Berkeley.

Even when the country was less racially tolerant than it is now, both parents had successful careers and were able to provide opportunities for their daughter even as they divorced. She made the most of them. Like Barack Obama, Ms. Harris’s success is a living refutation of the left’s critique of America as an oppressive, racist land.

Her political record, on the other hand, will reassure Democrats more than independents or soft Republicans. She’s a political lifer who rose through the patronage machine of former Assembly Speaker Willie Brown. She was a local prosecutor, a state Attorney General for six years, and was elected to the Senate in 2016 after party bigs cleared the primary for her. This isn’t an extensive resume for executive office, and on foreign policy she is about as experienced as Sarah Palin.

Ms. Harris ran for President this year but washed out quickly despite being a media favorite as the candidate from central casting. Her campaign’s most notable moment came in the first debate when she played the race card against Mr. Biden by distorting the history of forced busing in the 1970s. The jab scored oohs and aahs from the media judges but its demagoguery was blatant.

Mr. Biden will get credit in some quarters for rising above that attack to choose her. But we’d feel better about Mr. Biden if he had bypassed her for that reason. An effective President needs to put his stamp on the party, not vice versa. In choosing Ms. Harris, Mr. Biden is bending to the party’s preferences and rewarding the kind of political cheap shot he abhors in Mr. Trump.

Her record as prosecutor will bother some on the Black Lives Matter left, but her identity as a minority will blunt that concern. She’s progressive but malleable. She was quick to endorse Medicare for All and the Green New Deal as a presidential candidate, but she backtracked when they began to look too extreme.

She is also a ferocious partisan. As California AG she killed a deal that would have rescued some ailing Catholic hospitals because of opposition from the Service Employees International Union. In the Senate she was one of the nastiest questioners of Brett Kavanaugh, which is a high bar. She floated some innuendo about the judicial nominee’s alleged secret discussions about Robert Mueller’s Russia probe without any evidence. As a candidate, Ms. Harris will be delighted to brawl with Donald Trump.

Mr. Biden may have backed himself into the corner of having to choose Ms. Harris. He limited his choices by promising to select a woman, and the black Democrats who saved him in South Carolina pressed for a black woman. Then the Sanders wing pressed for a progressive, and Ms. Harris is a safer choice by far than Elizabeth Warren.

In this sense the choice is revealing about the unusual nature of Mr. Biden’s candidacy. He won the nomination as the last-ditch, anti-Trump alternative to what would have been the suicidal selection of Bernie Sanders. More than any recent nominee, Mr. Biden is a party figurehead, more than a party leader. In adding Ms. Harris to the ticket, he has underscored that a vote for Mr. Biden isn’t merely a vote to oust Mr. Trump. It’s a vote for the coastal progressives who now dominate the Democratic Party.

You must be logged in to react.
Click any reaction to login.
4
0
0
0
2

(6) comments

Comment deleted.
Mary Ann Wenske

Exactly, Rick.

Comment deleted.
Mike Gomez

Well, Rick, there are plenty but you have to know the subject, writer, and context. Too many people pigeonhole newspapers to suit their confirmation bias. I am an unabashed Obama Democrat who never expected to find examples of bias in the Advocate. They do publish confirmation bias from columnists from the left/right side as most major newspapers do. I find it funny when people who aren't middle-of-the-road don't realize they aren't. I 'm glad I live in a country where I have options.

Mary Ann Wenske

Having a WSJ opinion piece from time to time is not endorsing a candidate or party. If there was a trend to the right, it was a slight correction from the vast number of editorials printed from all the left wing papers. And the Advocate STILL slants left on its Viewpoints Page. Every column from Ross Ramsey of the Texas Tribune is exceptionally biased for Democrats, as is the everyday use of the Texas Tribune's news articles. They are not even neutral. We need MORE Viewpoints pieces from conservative writers. One every few weeks does not make a trend to the right.

Mike Gomez

As I stated on my timeline this morning, the WSJ is a great business publication but their editorial board is bias and the same can be said for the New York Times.

I don’t read Walter Williams, Ross Ramsey, Michael Reagan or any confirmation bias in the Advocate.

I certainly don’t get my national politics from the Victoria Advocate.

Pushing or condoning a narrative is what I am looking at. Remaining silent can be viewed as a trend. Every large major newspaper that I know of has articles from conservatives and non-conservatives.

The editorial section of any newspaper always gets my attention because I naturally assume the local paper approves of what they publish.

Rick Dockery

I agree on the national politics in the advocate point. I love the advocate for local news and sports. I wish every editorial came from the advocate. Ramsey is in there too much. Too bad Dave Ramsey isn’t. There are plenty of national news sources. I want to know what’s going on around here.

Mike Gomez

For several years our hometown Victoria Advocate did not endorse a political candidate or party....I have seen the trend to the right especially with an editorial from the right leaning editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. I guess it was nice while it lasted

Welcome to the discussion.

Transparency. Your full name is required.
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article. And receive photos, videos of what you see.
Don’t be a troll. Don’t be a troll. Don’t post inflammatory or off-topic messages, or personal attacks.

Thank you for reading!

Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.

To subscribe, click here. Already a subscriber? Click here.