Posts tagged with "kamala harris"

Gaza Crisis: A Deciding Factor in the Election

Leave a reply

A New Policy released a statement analyzing the impact of the Gaza conflict and US policy towards it on the election results. The statement argues that the Gaza issue was a critical factor in key states like Michigan and revealed weaknesses in Biden’s campaign early on. It criticizes the Biden administration’s handling of the issue, particularly regarding the criminalization of student protests and Harris’s alignment with Biden’s unpopular stance on Gaza.

The statement suggests that the election outcome presents an opportunity to build a new coalition within the Democratic party, centering support for Palestinian rights, free speech, and a more just foreign policy. It emphasizes the need for strategic and urgent action to drive policy changes, shift American politics, and revive American values. Looking ahead, A New Policy expresses hope that President-Elect Trump’s transactional approach to foreign policy may lead to a change in US policy towards Israel. 

Read the full analysis of the election result below:

Josh Paul
Former Director, U.S. Department of State
Senior Advisor at DAWN, (DAWN; Founded by Jamal Khashoggi in 2018, DAWN promotes democracy & human rights in the Middle East and North Africa).
https://dawnmena.org/

Yesterday evening, before most States had been called, A New Policy issued the below release. In the morning light, every word of it stands.

But before we look forward, a look back: what was the role of Gaza and the Movement U.S. policy towards it has sparked in this election? Clearly, it was a critical factor in key states like Michigan. But even more than that, throughout the last year, it has been a leading indicator:

It was Gaza that first revealed the weakness in President Biden’s re-election campaign long before that fateful first debate. It was the criminalization of student protest that demonstrated the hypocrisy and signaled the failed nature of Biden’s, and then Harris’ attempt to woo millennials and Gen Zs long before the exit polls showed how badly she had underperformed. It was the hope for change in policy that buoyed Harris in the early days of her campaign, and then her unwillingness to separate herself from Biden on Gaza that signaled the fated strategy of hewing to the unpopular mantle of Biden long before Harris did so in any of the other policy areas. AIPAC may claim that this election was a victory for supporters of Netanyahu’s Israel, but in reality this election was a failure for those who could only see Gaza as a niche issue, rather than the vote-winner it could have been in many states, and the canary in the coalmine that it represented on issues far beyond Palestine.

And it will remain so. Whatever happens to America’s alliances, credibility, and civil rights in the year to come, it began with Joe Biden. It began with Gaza.

But all hope is not lost. President-Elect Trump has shown a clear transactionalism in his approach to foreign policy, and it is clear that unconditional support for Israel comes with a cost that exceeds its value. It is also clear that many across the Republican Party, and particularly in its base, believe that America should never offshore its own policy decisions. A New Policy will work with the incoming Administration and Congress wherever we can to ensure American interests are centered.

This is also a clear opportunity to take the new political cycle build and grow a new coalition in the Democratic party. Biden’s failure – Blinken’s failure – Sullivan’s failure – and the failure of many other senior officials who for over a year have turned a deaf ear to the calls from their own base, and a blind eye to the suffering of the Palestinian people – should be a wake-up call, and a chance to fundamentally shift support for Palestinian rights, support for free speech at home, and support for a more just American foreign policy, from the left of the party to its center.

There is much to be done, and for many people this morning the barriers to success may seem higher than ever. But we must work strategically, and with urgency, to drive urgent and overdue changes in America’s policies, to shift American politics, to center America’s interests, and to revive American values. That work begins today.

FCC Commissioner Criticizes Harris’ SNL Appearance, Reigniting Equal Time Rule Debate

Leave a reply

A recent appearance by Vice President Kamala Harris on Saturday Night Live (SNL) has sparked controversy, with FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr accusing the show of providing free airtime to the Biden-Harris campaign in a “clear and blatant effort to evade the equal time rule.” This incident has reignited discussions about the relevance and implications of the equal time rule in contemporary American politics.

Understanding the Equal Time Rule

The equal time rule, enshrined in the Communications Act of 1934, mandates that broadcasters provide equal opportunities to qualified political candidates for airtime. If a station gives airtime to one candidate outside of a newscast, it must offer the same opportunity to opposing candidates under the same conditions.

Pros of the Equal Time Rule:

  • Promotes Fairness: The rule aims to level the playing field for candidates, preventing broadcasters from favoring one candidate over another.
  • Enhances Political Discourse: By ensuring diverse viewpoints are represented, the rule can foster a more informed electorate.
  • Protects Smaller Candidates: It offers lesser-known candidates a chance to reach a wider audience, challenging the dominance of well-funded campaigns.

Cons of the Equal Time Rule:

  • Restricts Creative Expression: Critics argue that the rule can stifle creativity and limit the range of political commentary in media.
  • Leads to Superficial Coverage: To avoid triggering the rule, broadcasters might opt for shallow coverage of political events.
  • Difficult to Enforce: The rule’s complexities, with exceptions for news interviews and documentaries, can make enforcement challenging.

Relevance to American Political Culture

The equal time rule has played a significant role in shaping American political culture, influencing how candidates interact with the media and how political campaigns are conducted. However, its relevance is increasingly debated in the era of cable news, social media, and streaming platforms.

Key Takeaways

  • The Harris-SNL incident highlights the ongoing tensions between the equal time rule and evolving media landscapes.
  • While the rule’s intent to ensure fairness and diverse political discourse remains valuable, its application in the modern media environment needs re-evaluation.
  • Striking a balance between promoting equitable access for candidates and preserving freedom of expression is crucial for a healthy democracy.

The debate over the equal time rule is far from settled. As technology and media consumption habits continue to evolve, policymakers and broadcasters must grapple with the challenge of adapting this rule to ensure a fair and vibrant political discourse in the 21st century.

The Unintended Consequences of Truancy Laws: Kamala Harris’ Controversial Legacy

Leave a reply

Truancy laws, designed to address school absenteeism, have long been a contentious topic in American society. The recent spotlight on Vice Presidential candidate Kamala Harris’ truancy program during her tenure as California’s Attorney General has reignited this debate, revealing the complex and often unintended consequences of such laws.

Harris’ program, implemented in 2011, allowed district attorneys to charge parents with a misdemeanor if their children missed 10% of the school year without a valid reason. While the intention behind the law was to improve school attendance and reduce dropout rates, its application disproportionately affected families of color and those with disabled children.

One of the most striking examples of the law’s unintended consequences is the case of Cheree Peoples, a Black mother whose daughter suffered from sickle cell anemia. Peoples was arrested and “perp-walked” in front of cameras for her daughter’s absences, despite the fact that they were due to a legitimate medical condition. This incident highlighted the punitive nature of the law and its failure to consider the underlying reasons for absenteeism.

The fundamental flaw in Harris’ approach was the focus on punishing parents rather than addressing the root causes of truancy. By criminalizing parents, the law created a hostile environment that further alienated families from the education system. Moreover, it failed to acknowledge the complex social and economic factors that contribute to chronic absenteeism, such as poverty, lack of transportation, and health issues.

For parents of disabled children, the impact of truancy laws was particularly severe. Children with disabilities often require additional support and accommodations, which can lead to increased absences. By punishing parents for these absences, the law effectively penalized them for their children’s disabilities.

The legacy of Harris’ truancy program serves as a cautionary tale about the limitations of using the criminal justice system to address social issues. It underscores the importance of understanding the underlying causes of truancy and implementing solutions that are supportive rather than punitive.

Truancy laws, in their current form, shape American culture by reinforcing the notion that parents are solely responsible for their children’s education, regardless of the challenges they may face. They perpetuate a system that disproportionately punishes marginalized communities and fails to address the systemic inequities that contribute to chronic absenteeism.

Moving forward, it is essential to reimagine truancy laws in a way that prioritizes support and collaboration over punishment. This includes investing in resources that address the root causes of absenteeism, such as providing transportation, healthcare, and social services to families in need. By shifting the focus from blame to support, we can create a more equitable and effective approach to improving school attendance and ensuring that all children have the opportunity to succeed.

Truancy laws can damage the relationship between parents and schools by:

  • Creating a punitive and adversarial environment that makes parents feel like they are being blamed for their children’s absences.
  • Undermining trust between parents and school officials.
  • Making parents less likely to reach out to schools for help with their children’s educational needs.

Specific examples of how truancy laws have negatively impacted the relationship between parents and schools include:

  • Cheree Peoples’ Case: Cheree Peoples, a mother whose daughter had sickle cell anemia, was arrested and publicly shamed for her daughter’s medically necessary absences. This created a hostile environment and broke down trust between Peoples and her daughter’s school.
  • Focus on Blame: Truancy laws often place the blame for absences solely on parents, regardless of the underlying causes. This can lead to resentment and defensiveness from parents, making them less likely to cooperate with school officials.
  • Fear of Legal Consequences: The threat of fines, jail time, or other legal penalties can create a climate of fear among parents, discouraging them from communicating openly with schools about their children’s attendance issues.
  • Reduced Parental Involvement: When parents feel criminalized or blamed, they may become less involved in their children’s education, leading to further academic and social problems.

These examples illustrate how truancy laws can create a adversarial relationship between parents and schools, hindering communication and collaboration that are essential for student success.

The main criticism of Kamala Harris’ truancy program was that it focused on punishing parents rather than addressing the root causes of truancy, such as poverty, lack of transportation, and health issues. This punitive approach disproportionately affected families of color and those with disabled children. Kamala Harris’ truancy program damaged the relationship between parents and schools by creating a punitive and adversarial environment, undermining trust, and making parents less likely to reach out for help. This was especially true for families of color and those with disabled children.

To protect children with disabilities:

  • Ensure equal access to education: Enforce laws that mandate accommodations and support for students with disabilities, ensuring they can fully participate in school.
  • Address underlying issues: Instead of punishing parents for absences related to a child’s disability, provide resources and support to address the root causes of those absences. This could include access to healthcare, transportation, and social services.
  • Promote understanding and awareness: Educate school staff, students, and the community about the needs of children with disabilities, fostering a more inclusive and supportive environment.
  • Empower parents: Involve parents in decision-making processes related to their child’s education and well-being, and provide them with information and resources to advocate for their child’s needs.
  • Shift focus from blame to support: Move away from punitive measures and towards a collaborative approach that focuses on understanding and addressing the challenges faced by children with disabilities and their families.

    Kamala Harris’ truancy program disproportionately affected families of color and those with disabled children because these communities are more likely to face the underlying social and economic factors that contribute to chronic absenteeism, such as poverty, lack of transportation, and health issues. Additionally, these communities may have less access to resources and support to address these issues.

    CBS News Editing Sparks Debate: Erosion of Trust and Media’s Role in Shaping American Culture

    Leave a reply

    In a recent turn of events, CBS News has found itself in hot water after admitting to editing an interview with Vice President Kamala Harris. The network removed a portion of Harris’ response to a question about the Middle East conflict, replacing it with a different segment from her answer. This move has ignited a firestorm of criticism, with accusations of bias and a lack of transparency.

    The Importance of Trust in Journalism

    This incident underscores the critical importance of trust in journalism. In an era of rampant misinformation and partisan divides, the public relies on journalists to provide accurate and unbiased information. When news organizations are caught manipulating content, it erodes this trust and fuels skepticism about the media’s motives.

    Journalistic Code of Conduct

    Ethical journalism adheres to a strict code of conduct, which includes principles like accuracy, fairness, and transparency. Editing interviews in a way that alters the meaning or context of a statement violates these principles. It is essential for news outlets to maintain the integrity of their reporting to preserve public trust.

    Lack of Trust in Media

    Unfortunately, trust in the media has been declining in recent years. This incident only serves to exacerbate this problem. When the public perceives bias or a lack of transparency, it leads to a further erosion of trust. This is a dangerous trend that can have serious implications for our democracy.

    Trust in journalism is crucial because:

    • Accurate and unbiased information: The public relies on journalists to provide factual and objective reporting, especially in an era of widespread misinformation.
    • Foundation of democracy: A well-informed citizenry is essential for a functioning democracy. Trustworthy journalism ensures people have the information they need to make informed decisions.
    • Holding power accountable: Journalism acts as a watchdog, holding those in power accountable for their actions. This is only possible if the public trusts the media to report fairly and without bias.
    • Social cohesion: Trust in journalism helps to foster social cohesion by providing a shared understanding of events and issues.

    Overall, trust in journalism is fundamental for a healthy society and a functioning democracy.

    Media and American Culture

    The media plays a vital role in shaping American culture and political discourse. It is crucial that news organizations uphold the highest standards of journalistic ethics to ensure that the public receives accurate and unbiased information. This is essential for a healthy democracy.

    Editing interviews in a way that alters the meaning or context of a statement has several ethical implications:

    • Misrepresentation: It can misrepresent the interviewee’s views, leading to a distorted public perception.
    • Loss of Trust: It erodes public trust in the media, as it raises questions about the accuracy and objectivity of reporting.
    • Manipulation: It can be seen as a form of manipulation, where the media outlet is trying to shape the narrative to fit its own agenda.
    • Undermining Democracy: By distorting information, it undermines the democratic process, as citizens may make decisions based on inaccurate or incomplete information.

    Overall, such editing practices violate the core principles of ethical journalism, which include accuracy, fairness, and transparency.

    To avoid altering the meaning or context of interviews, journalists should adhere to these specific ethical guidelines:

    • Accuracy: Ensure that all quotes and information presented are accurate and faithfully represent the interviewee’s statements.
    • Transparency: Be open about any edits made, especially those that involve condensing or rearranging content.
    • Impartiality: Avoid bias in the selection and presentation of interview material.
    • Context: Provide sufficient context for viewers or readers to understand the full meaning of the interviewee’s statements.
    • Consent: Obtain consent from the interviewee before making significant changes to their words or the order in which they are presented.
    • Corrections: Promptly correct any errors or misrepresentations that may occur.

    By following these guidelines, journalists can maintain the integrity of their reporting and uphold the public’s trust in their work.

    Potential consequences for news organizations that engage in such editing practices include:

    • Loss of credibility and public trust: This is the most significant consequence, as it undermines the organization’s ability to function effectively as a source of reliable information.
    • Legal repercussions: In some cases, particularly if the editing is deemed malicious or defamatory, the organization could face lawsuits.
    • Damage to reputation: The organization’s reputation may suffer, leading to a decline in viewership, readership, or advertising revenue.
    • Backlash from the public and stakeholders: This could manifest as public criticism, boycotts, or pressure from advertisers and investors.
    • Internal conflict: Such practices can lead to internal dissent and ethical dilemmas among journalists within the organization.

    Overall, the potential consequences are severe and highlight the importance of upholding ethical standards in journalism.

    CBS continues to face accusations of deceitful editing in its interview with Vice President Kamala Harris, particularly regarding her responses on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Former President Trump criticized CBS and called for the network to lose its license, prompting CBS to issue a statement defending its editing practices. While CBS claims the edits were for clarity and accuracy, Trump’s campaign demands the release of the full transcript for transparency. An FCC complaint has been filed, but it’s unlikely to be investigated under the current Democratic leadership. However, the situation could change if Trump is re-elected and appoints a Republican FCC chair.

    Takeaways from the 60 Minutes Interview

    The 60 Minutes incident offers valuable lessons for improving trust in the media:

    • Transparency: News organizations should be transparent about their editing practices and any changes made to interviews.
    • Accountability: When mistakes are made, news organizations should be held accountable.
    • Ethical Guidelines: Journalists should adhere to a strict code of ethics that prioritizes accuracy, fairness, and transparency.

    By following these principles, news organizations can work to rebuild public trust and fulfill their crucial role in a democratic society.

    Hopes for Harris Presidency Hinge on Concrete Policy Changes

    Leave a reply

    By Josh Paul

    Former Director, U.S. Department of State.
    Senior Advisor at DAWN, (DAWN; Founded by Jamal Khashoggi in 2018, DAWN promotes democracy & human rights in the Middle East and North Africa).
    https://dawnmena.org/

    When asked by media and allies I have expressed a belief that a Harris presidency would be “slightly better” than the Biden Presidency has been for Gaza, in part because she is not a hard-cast ideologue on this issue as Biden is, and in part because her team are more moderate and reasonable (and frankly also more thoughtful and self-aware) than Biden’s team are.

    But the devil is in the details. When it comes to those details, it is hard to point to a specific area where we can be sure a Harris presidency would be better. Would they be more likely to condition or suspend arms transfers? They have been explicit that they would not. Would they enforce the U.S. laws already on the books, such as 620I or Leahy? They have not said they would. Would they stand up for the rights of peaceful protestors on campuses across America? They have given no sign of doing so, and indeed, Harris’ responses both to the protests at the time of Netanyahu’s visit to Washington DC, and to protests at her own campaign events, have been deeply disappointing – and their unwillingness to even give a Palestinian-American a voice at the Democratic Convention was a very worrying sign.

    I also believe that no individual, not even at the level of the President of the United States, can bring transformative change to U.S. policy on this issue in the next four years given how firmly entrenched the current approach is across American politics – this is something that will take many years to fix, and in the coming weeks I will be unveiling a new effort to address this strategically, holistically, and effectively.

    In the meantime, I, and others I have spoken to, would like to believe that Harris would be slightly better than where we are. But there is only so long we can wave our hands at generalities and presumptions – we need clear words from the Harris campaign that give a basis for these hopes. Without those, it is becoming increasingly difficult to hold to such hopes, and the polls demonstrate that the Harris campaign should be increasingly concerned about the implications of this gap between hopes and words – let alone actions – for outcomes of the election in key states.

    The ball is in their, and her, court.

    JD Vance Confronts VP Harris and Walz on Tarmac

    Leave a reply

    In a bold move, Republican vice presidential candidate JD Vance attempted to confront Vice President Kamala Harris and her running mate, Tim Walz, upon their arrival in Eau Claire, Wisconsin. Vance expressed his frustration over Harris’ refusal to answer questions from reporters for the past 17 days.

    Vance, who spoke to the press after approaching Air Force Two, questioned the lack of transparency and accountability from the Vice President. He criticized Harris for her shifting stances on various issues, including crime and border control.

    “This is a person who has to answer questions from the media and it’s disgraceful that she runs from you guys, and it’s also insulting to the American people,” Vance stated.

    While Harris has engaged in off-the-record discussions with reporters, she has avoided on-record interviews since President Biden endorsed her as his successor. This lack of transparency has drawn criticism from Vance and others who believe the American people deserve direct answers from their elected officials.

    The incident highlights the growing tension between the two campaigns as the election season heats up. Vance’s confrontational approach underscores the Republicans’ determination to hold Harris accountable for her record and positions. Nonetheless, on the heels of the attempted assassination of Donald J. Trump, Vance’s move – confronting his opponents on a tarmac after landing –  is a risky and threatening one. 

    What potential implications could Vance’s confrontation have on the upcoming election? 

    Vance’s confrontation with Harris could have several potential implications for the upcoming election:

    • Increased media attention: The incident is likely to draw significant media coverage, potentially increasing public awareness of both Vance and Harris. This could benefit Vance by raising his profile, but it could also backfire if he is perceived as overly aggressive.
    • Highlighting Harris’ record: Vance’s criticisms of Harris’ shifting stances on issues like crime and border control could resonate with voters who are concerned about these topics. This could damage Harris’ credibility and make her appear less trustworthy.
    • Galvanizing Republican voters: Vance’s confrontational approach could energize Republican voters who are eager to see their candidates take a strong stance against the Democratic ticket. This could increase Republican turnout in the election.
    • Alienating moderate voters: Vance’s aggressive tactics could alienate moderate voters who prefer a more civil and respectful tone in political discourse, especially in the shadow of Trump’s attempted assassination. This could hurt the Republican ticket’s chances of winning over undecided voters.
    • Setting the tone for the campaign: The incident could set a precedent for future interactions between the two campaigns. If both sides continue to engage in confrontational tactics, it could lead to a more negative and divisive campaign.

    Overall, the potential implications of Vance’s confrontation with Harris are complex and multifaceted. It remains to be seen how the incident will ultimately impact the upcoming election.

    The Finger Of Providence Pointed To A Trump Loss

    Leave a reply

    BY JEANETTE LENOIR

    “Only virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” – Benjamin Franklin 

    Knowing that nearly 70-million Americans voted to keep a deranged racist at the helm of the most powerful nation in the world couldn’t dampen the spirit that rose like a phoenix from the ashes today. We did it, America! With the fire of the legend of Jim Thorpe, we did it. And this new dawn isn’t just washing away the worst of American greed and corruption, it’s ushering in the dreams and the hopes of enslaved Africans responsible for the wealth of our great nation, leaving behind the domestic terrorism fueled by the sitting duck in chief, Donald Trump.

    And if you listen really close, you’ll hear the words in the breeze Dr. King spoke in 1963 during the March on Washington, “I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed…” Well, America, we’re rising despite all the noise from those with a death grip on hate, racism and intolerance.

    And let’s not forget the spirit of Shirley Chisholm, the first Black woman elected to Congress and the first African American to vie for the Democratic nomination for President in 1972. If you can’t see her essence in our first Woman of Color Vice President-elect, Kamala Harris, you don’t know American history, the divine power of spirituality, the Black struggle for equality and the true meaning of demanding a seat at the table. Chisholm emboldened us to bring a folding chair to the table if a seat wasn’t offered. How proud she must be looking down at her countrymen who, during her lifetime, denied her basic human rights. We’ve come a long way but the journey to true freedom and equality is still far from our reach.

    As Louisiana proudly holds on to the shame of American history with its support of a hateful and corrupt president, I can’t help but remember the 1863 photo of the brutally whipped slave, Whipped Peter, who had escaped to join the Union Army. You see, Louisiana is comfortably numb to the truth of Black lives in America because they’ve been successful in convincing the, “lowest white man that he’s better than the best colored man.” So, they maintain their grip on hate disguised with political rhetoric unsuitable to the reality on the ground for their people; Black, white and everyone else not secured in generational wealth catalyzed by slave labor and persistent, inexcusable inequality. It’s an ugly truth but it must be told.

    Another story worthy of remembering as we mark America’s first Jamaican Vice President is that of Fred Littlejohn. In the 1920s he moved his family from the South to Queens, New York and called themselves Jamaicans to avoid the mistreatment of Southerners in the North. And it was a biracial student committee in Chicago that founded Congress of Racial Equality, (CORE). The group staged its first sit-in at a coffee shop, leading to the inclusion of serving Blacks. Harris embodies all of America; the lives of the enslaved, native born and immigrant, who sacrificed everything for the homecoming we are witnessing in the election of this historic Democratic ticket.

    And this win is also reminiscent of the 1968 Summer Olympics when African American sprinters John Carlos and Tommie Smith raised their gloved fists in a Black power salute. What many of us miss in translation is the white sprinter from Australia, Peter Norman, who joined in the protest by wearing a button on his uniform promoting a Human Rights campaign to stamp out racism. Australians punished him for his act of bravery, only coming to their senses 6 years after his death in 2006, (after a tragic life spurred from the abuse he endured) with a formal apology from the Australian Parliament saying his gesture “was a moment of heroism and humility that advanced international awareness for racial inequality.”

    Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are progenies of revolutionaries intent on fully birthing the dream that is America. And Biden’ American legacy beats in rhythm with Harris’, making them a powerful and symbolic metaphor of America’s strength and deep-rooted posture as leader of the free world and beacon of hope for all mankind. The disheartening election results serves as a reminder of the evils of mankind, including the demagoguery, thuggery and authoritarianism that Donald Trump and his family demonstrated. So, let’s heed the lessons learned because it’s time we do the necessary and uncomfortable work to make America, and the world, a place where we all feel good in.

    “The sum of us all is, if we would most truly enjoy the gift of Heaven, let us become a virtuous people; then shall we both deserve and enjoy it. While, on the other hand, if we are universally vicious and debauched in our manners, though the form of our Constitution carries the face of the most exalted freedom, we shall in reality be the most abject slaves.” – Samuel Adams