Politics
Column: Kamala Harris tried being something she wasn't. Now that liberal makeover is dogging her candidacy
When Kamala Harris stepped in to replace the tottering Joe Biden atop the Democratic ticket, there was no small amount of trepidation within her party.
The only basis many had for judging Harris was her performance as vice president, which was shaky before she hit her stride some years into the job, and the crash-and-burn campaign she waged for president in 2020, which flamed out long before any votes were cast.
Harris quickly allayed those concerns, at least among fellow Democrats. Her charismatic campaign style has shined through at rallies attracting capacity crowds. She headlined a boffo political convention in August and easily bested Donald Trump earlier this month in their one, and possibly only, debate.
Still, the hangover from her failed 2020 campaign lingers, owing to Harris’ leftward lurch and the position she took on issues, such as healthcare and immigration, that Trump and other Republicans have eagerly used to portray “Comrade Kamala” as the ideological stepchild of Karl Marx and Chairman Mao.
Polls show that one of Harris’ greatest weaknesses in this snap presidential campaign is a perception that she is “too liberal,” as nearly half the respondents stated in a recent ABC/Ipsos survey.
What’s striking is that Harris has never been the flaming lefty her positioning in the 2020 campaign would suggest, or some might impute from her grounding in the progressive climes of San Francisco, where Harris started her political career by winning election as district attorney.
“She’s center-left,” said Dan Morain, a former Times staff writer and author of the biography “Kamala’s Way: An American Life.”
“That’s what she was in San Francisco. That’s what she was when she ran for [state] attorney general … She’s a prosecutor,” Morain said, and while prosecutors aren’t necessarily conservative “by and large they’re more conservative than run-of-the-mill Democrats.”
It was political expediency — or, as some close to Harris prefer, necessity — that caused her to stake her leftward ground.
One Harris advisor, who has known the vice president for years, described the 2020 Democratic primary as a series of ideological litmus tests and a competition to see how many of the liberal boxes the large field of jostling candidates could check. The advisor agreed to speak candidly in return for anonymity, to preserve his relationship with the Democratic nominee.
“If you checked those boxes,” he said, “you could live to see another day.”
Another longtime member of Harris’ political circle, who was similarly circumspect in discussing her 2020 campaign, said “there was a perception that the path to the nomination was only through running on the left” and managing to “out-Bernie” and “out-Warren” the competition. (That would be progressive totems Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.)
That move not only turned out to be a strategic miscalculation, as pandemic-panicked voters turned to the more centrist Biden, but for Harris it was a masquerade. She was trying to be something she was not, this other longtime observer said. Worse, “She ended up adopting a bunch of positions that ultimately left her nothing but baggage four years later.”
Funny how that works.
As part of her makeover, Harris backed elimination of the country’s private health insurance system, supported a ban on fracking, called for drastic cuts to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency and said she was open to a “conversation” on allowing violent felons to vote from their cells. Recently, CNN’s Andrew Kaczynski surfaced a 2019 ACLU questionnaire in which Harris supported taxpayer funding of gender transition surgeries for detained immigrants and federal prisoners.
Harris has long since jettisoned those positions on healthcare, immigration and fracking. She abandoned her stance on jailhouse balloting the very next day. In response to Kaczynski’s sleuthing, the Harris campaign offered this response, a masterwork of opacity: “The Vice President’s positions have been shaped by three years of effective governance as part of the Biden-Harris Administration.”
As for Harris, she’s acknowledged changing some of her positions but insists, “My values have not changed.”
But her political persona certainly has. After running away from the image of a tenacious prosecutor in the 2020 race — when criminal-justice reform was a hot issue for many Democrats — she’s now making law and order a centerpiece of her White House bid.
There’s obviously a big difference between running in a primary, when a party’s most ideological voters hold sway, and campaigning in a general election, which requires appealing to a broader slice of Americans. Harris has benefited greatly from her overnight installation as the Democratic nominee, which spared her the need to genuflect so conspicuously to the political left.
But given her willingness to do that the last time she ran for president — even if it meant going against her more-centrist inclinations — voters aren’t wrong to wonder where Harris stands and how firmly she’ll stick to those values she professes to hold dear.
In 2002, as a U.S. senator from New York, Hillary Clinton voted to give President George W. Bush the authority to invade Iraq. It seemed, at the time, a politically wise move for someone considering a future run for president and wanting to avoid the weak-kneed image that had plagued Democrats since the Vietnam War era.
As it turned out, Clinton’s vote was a key reason she lost the Democratic nomination in 2008 to then-Sen. Barack Obama, a staunch opponent of the Iraq War.
All of those candidate contortions bring to mind a line from Hamlet: To thine own self be true.
It’s a good prescription for life. And for politics as well.
new video loaded: Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon
transcript
transcript
Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon
Elias Irizarry, who pleaded guilty to climbing through a broken window at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, now works for an office responsible for uncovering and defending against terrorism plots at the Pentagon.
-
“Full pardon or commutation?” “Full pardon.”
By Alisa Shodiyev Kaff
June 4, 2026
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Democrats splintered over a resolution seeking to block the U.S. from assisting Israel’s war against Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed terrorist group, on Thursday.
The measure, offered by progressive Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., would require President Donald Trump to withdraw U.S. forces from Lebanon. For months, Israel and Hezbollah, a U.S.-designated terrorist group and Iranian proxy, have been at war in southern Lebanon, but the United States has not joined the conflict.
A bipartisan coalition of lawmakers, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., rejected the measure. Critics argued the resolution could aid Hezbollah and potentially hamstring U.S. military operations in the country.
Tlaib’s resolution failed 92-324, with more than half of House Democrats joining nearly all Republicans to vote it down.
The Lebanon war powers resolution divided Democrats, with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., joining Republicans in rejecting the measure. (Aaron Schwartz/Bloomberg)
REP RASHIDA TLAIB MOVES TO BLOCK US OPERATIONS IN LEBANON BUT IGNORES HEZBOLLAH
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., an Israel critic, was the lone Republican to support Tlaib’s measure. Meanwhile, Reps. Derek Tran, D-Calif., and Betty McCollum, D-Minn., voted present.
House Democratic leaders said shortly before the vote they would oppose Tlaib’s resolution and work with the progressive lawmaker on a narrower measure exempting some U.S. military operations in the country. Their statement also denounced Hezbollah as a “violent terrorist organization” and a “sworn enemy of the United States.”
Tlaib, who has accused Israel of committing “ethnic cleansing” in Lebanon, did not mention Hezbollah in her resolution. She and other proponents of the measure also avoided discussing the Iranian proxy force during heated floor debate over the measure.
Republicans highlighted the omission and accused the legislation’s supporters of serving as “proxies for Hezbollah.”
“Apparently they don’t want to see Israel killing Hezbollah, even though it’s Hezbollah that is killing Israeli children, Israeli adults, Israeli elders,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Brian Mast, R-Fla., said Wednesday, referring to his Democratic colleagues.
Tlaib asserted that her resolution would only affect U.S. forces actively engaged in hostilities. Republicans, however, disputed that claim and suggested it would hurt U.S. efforts to counter Hezbollah.
“It doesn’t say anything about [whether] you can keep the Marines that are in the embassy,” Mast said, referring to the U.S. embassy in Beirut. “That’s a pretty big oversight. It doesn’t say anything about whether we can keep United States armed forces that are training missions with the LAF [Lebanese Armed Forces]. Again, pretty big oversight.”
Rep. Rashida Tlaib, a Democrat from Michigan, attempted to bar U.S. forces from joining Israel’s war in Lebanon. (Tierney L. Cross/Bloomberg)
RASHIDA TLAIB HIT WITH HOUSE CENSURE THREAT, ACCUSED OF ‘CELEBRATING TERRORISM’ IN PRO-PALESTINIAN SPEECH
The debate turned personal when Rep. Max Miller, R-Ohio, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, linked Tlaib to Hezbollah.
“Hezbollah is a terrorist organization … and its members are butchers that you like to hang out with to a certain extent,” the Ohio lawmaker said, referring to Tlaib.
A shouting match between the two then broke out, with Tlaib demanding that Miller’s remarks be stricken from the record.
The presiding chair ultimately complied with her request, but Miller doubled down on his remarks.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“Yes, I said it. I own it, and I stand by it,” Mast said on behalf of Miller on the floor.
Tlaib’s failed war powers resolution comes as Iran has sought to tie Israel’s invasion of Lebanon to its ceasefire negotiations with the United States.
Hezbollah, which has long helped Iran project power in the region, rejected a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Lebanon’s government Thursday.
WASHINGTON — Initial efforts in the Senate failed Thursday to block the $1.8-billion fund that the Trump administration has sought to establish to pay people who claim the government wronged them, though further attempts were likely to come Thursday afternoon.
Republicans narrowly voted down a Democratic amendment to ban the payout fund and then Democrats killed a Republican amendment, which would have prohibited the use of federal money for the fund but would have sent $1.7 billion to the Justice Department’s fraud division.
It was the second effort in Congress to rebuke President Trump in two days, following the House vote Wednesday to rein in Trump’s war powers in Iran.
The dueling amendments were proposed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). They were attached to the reconciliation bill that would fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol, a high priority for Republicans.
The votes came as the Senate began a “vote-a-rama,” during which lawmakers were expected to propose a stream of amendments to the immigration bill on various topics.
The Trump administration’s plan for the payment fund — widely seen as a way for Trump to compensate his political allies, including those who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol — set off particular ire from some GOP lawmakers.
The plan has fueled growing unrest within parts of Trump’s party over his governance, compounded by the president’s endorsement of primary challengers to Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), as well as Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), which angered some Republican senators.
Cassidy, who lost his primary and has since voiced strong opposition to Trump’s $1.8-billion fund, became a key player in the Thursday votes, voting down Schumer’s amendment but supporting Tillis’.
On Wednesday, Cassidy joined with Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) to argue in a court filing that the $1.8-billion fund circumvents Congress’ authority and violates the Constitution’s spending and appropriations clauses.
“It is an unconstitutional attempt to spend the People’s money without Congressional approval,” Cassidy and Booker wrote in an amicus brief filed in the federal court case challenging the fund.
The fund was created by the Justice Department to settle a lawsuit brought by Trump against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. Trump and his sons agreed to drop their personal lawsuit against the government in exchange for the creation of the $1.776-billion fund. Critics immediately questioned the plan, and it drew a rare backlash from Republicans.
In late May, GOP senators derailed plans to vote on the immigration bill over their displeasure with the payout fund and with Trump’s desire to use taxpayer funds for his planned White House ballroom. Senate Republicans removed the ballroom funding from the immigration package Wednesday, another setback for Trump.
The Trump administration sought to back away from its plans for the fund this week, following bipartisan outcry and a federal court ruling that temporarily blocked any payouts from the fund. Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said Tuesday the administration would end its plans to move ahead with the concept.
But Trump on Wednesday told reporters he didn’t know whether the fund was dead, calling it “a beautiful thing.”
After Schumer proposed the first amendment to ban the fund Thursday morning, the Senate came to a standstill as three key Republican senators deliberated. Schumer framed his effort to ban the fund Thursday as a way to force a referendum on Trump’s plan.
The amendment “offers Republicans a choice: Do you support Donald Trump’s $2 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund, or do you want to protect the American people and their paychecks?” Schumer said on the Senate floor before the vote.
Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) urged Republicans to reject the amendment, saying Democrats were planning to “play so many games” on Thursday during the marathon session.
“We are going to fund immigration enforcement and border patrol, and I urge my Republican colleagues to stay united on that singular mission,” Moreno said.
The amendment failed after Cassidy voted against it. Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Jon Husted of Ohio and Dan Sullivan of Alaska voted in favor.
Schumer’s amendment was uniformly supported by Democrats, including California Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla.
Tillis, who also voted against Schumer’s amendment, immediately proposed his amendment. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) urged Democrats to oppose it, saying that the proposal would create “a new slush fund” by giving the money to the Justice Department.
“We heard over the last 48 hours that the acting attorney general said that this fund’s not moving forward. All this amendment does is codify what I believe the policy of the DOJ is,” Tillis said on the floor before voting began on his amendment. “This [fund] is unpopular, this administration has said they’re not moving forward with it; this is an opportunity for us to put it to bed.”
Responded Merkley: “Taking one slush fund and eliminating it and then creating a new slush fund still under control of the attorney general is not the way to go. The way to go is to get rid of these slush funds altogether.”
Trump has faced a recent string of failures, including the House vote Wednesday, a court ruling to remove his name from the Kennedy Center and a record-low approval rating among Americans as concern rises about economic issues, gas prices and Trump’s war with Iran.
On Wednesday, Trump lashed out against the four Republicans who backed the House war powers resolution, calling it “an unpatriotic thing” to do and calling the vote “meaningless.”
“They’re GRANDSTANDERS! They should be ashamed of themselves. MAGA!!! President DJT,” Trump wrote.
Times staff writer Ana Ceballos, in Washington, contributed to this report.
-
Pennsylvania2 minutes agoPennsylvania hunting licenses to soon go on sale
-
Rhode Island7 minutes agoRhode Island DCYF discloses fatality of 18-year-old
-
South-Carolina14 minutes agoDECISION 2026: What to know about primary elections in South Carolina
-
South Dakota17 minutes agoUSF becomes South Dakota’s first ‘cardiac ready’ campus
-
Tennessee22 minutes ago2026 Tennessee football preview: Grady Dangerfield
-
Texas29 minutes agoFort Worth police launch drone program to speed response times
-
Utah32 minutes agoGot cargo? Utah Highway Patrol, DPS want you to secure your load before you drive
-
Vermont37 minutes agoVermont barn-building ‘legend’ still visits every job site at 83
