Voting for Harris is Voting for These Power Women
October 23, 2024
By Scott Steward
I am motivated to keep Venessa Chang, Lina Khan and Julie Su in power (see bios below). These women are in charge of our government’s renewable energy future, market, and wage equity. That goes very much away if Trump wins.
Against Trump’s authoritarian challenge, good men and good women have come together in associations where differences are put aside to elect Harris/Walz.
Indivisible Yolo (Indivisibleyolo.org) has built a platform of action here at home. For the next two weeks, the aim is to prevail in defending democracy.
Get involved. IY has already paved the way - training at no cost. indivisibleyolo.org. Weekdays and weekends. Canvassing to win congressional districts in California. Calls to win abortion rights in Arizona. Volunteers virtually go where they are needed. You need a computer and a cell phone to be fully able to help. It's the most important 2 weeks ever.
When we call, text, knock we win! Come join in!
(this message is provided by the author alone and not any organization)
Dr. Vanessa Chan, Department of Energy's Chief Commercialization Officer, has been accelerating the adoption of clean energy technologies. She has transformed and turbocharged DOE’s commercialization efforts.
Lina M. Khan is Chair of the Federal Trade Commission, which enforces the nation’s antitrust and consumer protection laws. Khan got her start in antitrust as a business reporter and researcher examining consolidation across markets, from airlines to chicken farming. Priority initiatives have included a proposed rule to ban noncompete clauses, scrutinizing dominant middlemen across sectors, protecting people’s sensitive data from unchecked surveillance, and fighting for Americans’ right to access affordable, high-quality healthcare. (There is some speculation about the certainty of Kahn's tenure under a Harris administration because of Kahn's harder line with Silicon Valley companies).
Acting Labor Secretary Julie Su served as the secretary for the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency. The Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division recovered more than $1 billion in back wages and damages for our nation's workers since the start of the Biden-Harris administration. Along with the Labor Relations Board, decisions have been friendly toward labor, including limiting the scope of workers classified as “independent contractors,” increasing eligibility for overtime pay, and banning most worker non-compete agreements (this last was overturned by the not-so-Supreme Court).
Keeping members of the current administration in power is a *positive* argument to you?
KH keeps talking about needing a change. Yeah, no kidding we need a change.
I despise Trump too. And I despise Stein.
I'm honestly not sure who I'm gonna vote for, because I will not vote for candidates I despise.
Maybe I'll write in "Rob Roy"
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | October 23, 2024 at 09:14 AM
I wonder if Harris will hire back "Brinton, who uses they/them pronouns and does not identify exclusively as either male or female"
https://nypost.com/2022/12/12/non-binary-biden-nuclear-official-sam-brinton-fired-after-multiple-luggage-theft-charges-reports/
P.S. To anyone that might know the answer to this is When calculating the percentage of female staffers do you count people who do "not identify exclusively as either male or female" as male or female?
Posted by: South of Davis | October 23, 2024 at 12:03 PM
ACM: It's a positive argument if those women are doing good work, as Scott says that they are. I'm not familiar with these three individuals, but I like what Scott has to say about their initiatives.
I can't see voting for anyone who has talked openly about dismantling our democracy, or failing to vote for the one person who has a chance of defeating him. I'm not going to say that Kamala is my ideal candidate, but I've only gotten to vote for a candidate I really liked once in my life, and even he wasn't perfect (Bernie). That being said, there is a lot that I do like about her.
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | October 23, 2024 at 01:39 PM
SOD, I almost didn't post your comment because it's off-topic, but since you were the second person who inferred that Scott was making an argument to the effect that we should act to keep these women in their positions because of their identities (the other one consisted solely of personal attacks and was thus not postable), I felt it was better to post yours and to point out that nowhere does Scott say that. In fact, he gives specific reasons for thinking that each of these women would be good to keep around. Of course, you might well disagree with the reasons he gives, but that's a separate issue.
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | October 23, 2024 at 01:45 PM
Roberta: The title of this article references "power women". The text of the article does not focus so much on their identity.
Regarding Trump, I doubt that the country's "energy future, market, and wage equity" can be dismantled if he wins re-election. Nor do I think he can threaten the democracy/republic itself, nor do I think that's his goal.
I'm personally still not planning to vote for him, regardless. (As if that made any difference in California in the first place.)
Posted by: Ron O | October 23, 2024 at 04:58 PM
Ron, if someone had a title like, "Three men to vote for," would you infer that the author wanted you to vote for them because they are men? Have you ever called out an author for referring to men that they were talking about as men? (And please don't take this down the trans* discussion again -- I simply won't post that sort of digression).
And yes, he adds "power" to women. That tells you that Scott isn't just saying vote for them because they are women. He is saying vote for them because they have power (as he goes on to describe in the article). They've made things happen --- things that are good, Scott implies.
As for DTJ dismantling democracy, here I quote former Marine Corps Gen. John Kelly, Donald Trump's longest-serving White House chief of staff:
"Well, looking at the definition of fascism: It’s a far-right authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy. So certainly, in my experience, those are the kinds of things that he thinks would work better in terms of running America.
...
Certainly the former president is in the far-right area, he's certainly an authoritarian, admires people who are dictators — he has said that. So he certainly falls into the general definition of fascist, for sure.
...
He certainly prefers the dictator approach to government...[He] never accepted the fact that he wasn’t the most powerful man in the world — and by power, I mean an ability to do anything he wanted, anytime he wanted"
I am glad, though, that you don't plan to vote for DJT, for whatever your reasons are (which of course you need not tell me).
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | October 23, 2024 at 05:11 PM
Ron, if someone had a title like, "Three men to vote for," would you infer that the author wanted you to vote for them because they are men?
No one makes that argument (as a reason to vote for them), nor do they refer to men as "power men" as a reason to vote for them. (At least, not in terms of being oppressed, etc.).
As far as what Kelly said, I don't categorize Trump as "far-right". Much of the Republican establishment rejects him. Including the Cheneys, Bush, etc. I would argue that both of the latter did far more damage than Trump ever did.
Look at how he is "re-phrasing" his position on abortion, for example. Now, one could definitely argue that he is trying to have it both ways on that (e.g., "the states get to decide").
He's used to an arena where he is "in charge". That's why the presidency doesn't really suit him. Political positions are ultimately public servant positions. As such, that's the perspective one should serve from.
I do believe that Trump is likely pursuing that position because he thinks that his vision benefits America. That, plus personal ego.
Regarding the reason I won't vote for him, there's several. Starting with his personal slamming of immigrants (though I don't support what's been occurring at the border), his general divisiveness, his inability to accept a loss, and his position on the environment. For example, he's already said that he'd support more transfer of federal land for housing - something that Democrats have ALREADY been doing - see Harry Reid, for example. I also don't like how easy it is to throw his own friends "under the bus" - simply if they disagree with him. "Hang Mike Pence", along with a bunch of others who he slammed or didn't support.
Reasons I like him (to some degree)? His sense of humor, his "outsider" position, his willingness to say what he thinks, his position on illegal immigration (which is also related to the environment and the so-called "housing crisis"), and his business experience (willingness to "make a deal"). Plus, there's the fact that his administration resulted in no wars. (Perhaps that's the most important consideration.)
I'm glad if he personally "makes friends" with dictators, including "Little Rocket Man" (as he himself referred to the leader of North Korea). Sometimes, personal relationships can make a difference.
I don't think Trump is a dummy.
I can tell you that if I was invited to Mar-a-Largo, I'd probably go. Trump strikes me as someone who would be a great host at a party where he's in control.
Posted by: Ron O | October 23, 2024 at 05:35 PM
"That being said, there is a lot that I do like about her."
What's to like about her? She's a complete ditz.
Posted by: Keith | October 23, 2024 at 08:34 PM
She is anything but a ditz. She is a well educated, well spoken, thoughtful, caring, insightful, experienced, and inspirational person. You may not agree with her, but calling her a ditz is out of line.
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | October 23, 2024 at 09:01 PM
You can like Kamala for whatever reasons you like, but "well spoken" is totally laughable.
Posted by: Keith | October 24, 2024 at 12:39 AM
RM: "She is a well educated, well spoken, thoughtful, caring, insightful, experienced, and inspirational person."
RM, I would not have used the "D" word, and most of your pints are arguable based on one's political leanings. But "well spoken" ? Her vacuous word salads are infamous. One reason D's were concerned about dumping Biden (reality check: he's still our president ???) was they didn't think KH was up to the job, largely based on her interview train wrecks where she'd take a lot of words to say virtually nothing. There are numerous YouTube reels of her gaffs - just do a quick search. I have been dreading for years a scenario that would lead to Harris as the nominee -- nightmare come true :-|
This is isn't anti-D or anti-Women. I was actually ready to support and vote for Gretchen Whitmer as a more-moderate, more-traditional D I could vote for, certainly better than Trump. But I don't consider continuing Biden policies and going even more further left on the national level is a good thing for the country -- and much as I despise Trump, I despise them both, for very different reasons. Whitmer I could have supported; she would have been a dignified first woman President worthy of that title
Yes, Harris rapidly changed numerous formal policy stances when she became the nominee, to more right-leaning and centered. But that's not who she was when she spoke on the same subjects for decades preceding. She'd already told us who she was, and as the saying goes, 'when people tell you who they are, believe them'. I believe what she said over the span of her career. I don't believe her recent, politically-motivated changes to those beliefs.
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | October 24, 2024 at 10:39 AM
I'm not going to say that every speech or interview that Harris has given has been perfect. But I can give you plenty of ones where she is just what I said: well-spoken. For example, here is her final summation at the debate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfp6gmjksiM
And if we're going to talk about word salad, then we really need to talk about Trump. I realize you're not promoting him, ACM, but if the issue is going to be raised, this needs to be said. His speeches have for a long time (to the point that is has been well satirized on SNL) jumped from subject to subject, but they have gotten worse and worse, invoking Hannibal Lecter, Arnold Palmer and his genitalia, claiming that he's nowhere near 80 (he's 20 months away), and other ramblings.
It's gotten so bad that hundreds of health professionals signed a letter calling for the release of his health records: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/10/doctors-harris-trump-records-fitness-health/
People made a stink about Biden, his age, and his fitness to serve. Those same folks should be speaking up about Trump (some are).
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | October 24, 2024 at 11:19 AM
"People made a stink about Biden, his age, and his fitness to serve. Those same folks should be speaking up about Trump (some are)."
Trump says stupid shit some times, it makes me cringe and I wonder what brought him to say it. But there's no comparing Trump's mental acuity to Biden's. Trump has ten times the energy of Biden.
Posted by: Keith | October 24, 2024 at 11:52 AM
Umm, no. Biden doesn't jump from random topic to random topic like Trump does. As a friend of mine pointed out, someone who can't stick to one thought (and most of his thoughts are about himself) is not in a position to negotiate with foreign powers.
As for his "energy," Trump has been canceling events left and right. It's all over the news, e.g.:
https://www.axios.com/2024/10/18/trump-cancels-interviews-2024
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/exhaustion-report-trump-cancels-yet-another-appearance-rcna176616
https://newrepublic.com/post/187405/donald-trump-cancels-events-joe-rogan
Etc.
And that reminds me of Trump's recent "town hall" where instead of taking questions, he had the organizers play music -- YMCA was one song -- while he stood on stage and swayed back and forth. Everyone on stage with him looked like they wanted to crawl under a rock somewhere.
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | October 24, 2024 at 12:44 PM
"Umm, no. Biden doesn't jump from random topic to random topic like Trump does."
What are you talking about? Biden can barely read his teleprompter.
"As a friend of mine pointed out, someone who can't stick to one thought "
Biden has no thoughts, he only says what he's told to say at this point of his obvious dementia.
Posted by: Keith | October 24, 2024 at 01:05 PM
"And that reminds me of Trump's recent "town hall" where instead of taking questions, he had the organizers play music "
I guess you didn't know that there were two lengthy medical emergencies in the audience that night that caused the town hall to be shortened. Can you imagine how Trump's detractors would've raked hime over the coals if he had gone ahead with the scheduled town hall after the emergencies.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4933368-donald-trump-pennsylvania-town-hall-medical-emergencies-music/
Posted by: Keith | October 24, 2024 at 01:40 PM
Age is not the same thing as senility, though (obviously) the risk increases as one gets older.
There is no comparison between Biden vs. Trump regarding this. Trump has always said crazy things. (That's the comparison one makes - the same person over time.)
Though I think I am detecting some signs of changes regarding Trump.
All of this (with the exception of Biden's obvious decline, which caused those in his own party to abandon him) is driven by the usual political noise.
Posted by: Ron O | October 24, 2024 at 02:09 PM
Trump is running, not Biden (anymore). And regardless of how he compares to Biden, a person who cannot stick to one idea and who brings in random and bizarre thoughts, is not fit to be president. Yes, he's been like this for a while, but there is general agreement that he's gotten worse -- that he was never really fit, and that yes, he is showing signs of dementia (not my analysis, but the analysis of mental health professionals).
Harris exhibits none of that.
As for the town hall, if he was worried about health emergencies he would have called it off and let people go, not make them sit there awkwardly watching him sway around to an assortment of odd music choices. He thinks only of himself.
And let's recall again that his own former chief of staff -- someone in a far better position to judge than any of us, and who is not exactly a raging liberal -- has said that he is a fascist.
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | October 24, 2024 at 04:15 PM
Roberta: From what I can tell, comments or articles on local/California blogs like the Davisite (regarding the presidential election) have about as much impact as pissing into the wind.
Regarding Trump's (possible) decline, it in no way resembles what we saw of Biden. The attack on Trump regarding this is driven by politics (essentially a "tit-for-tat"), not on perceptions of a decline in his mental acuity 2 weeks before the election is held. (With folks already voting, for that matter.)
Also, about half the country apparently disagrees with you. Or at least, half of the voters.
Nothing you or anyone else says is going to change the outcome, one way or another. So yeah, go ahead and call him a fascist, dictator, or whatever else comes to mind and see if that makes any difference. Good luck with that.
Posted by: Ron O | October 24, 2024 at 05:23 PM
Ron, I presume that you have your own reasons for posting here, and I have mine.
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | October 24, 2024 at 07:58 PM
"From what I can tell, comments or articles on local/California blogs like the Davisite (regarding the presidential election) have about as much impact as pissing into the wind."
From what I can tell, commenting at City Council meetings in towns like Davis (regarding anything) have about as much impact as pissing into the dais.
Although by merely commenting I avoid arrest :-|
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | October 24, 2024 at 10:35 PM
Ron, I presume that you have your own reasons for posting here, and I have mine.
I consider it a public service, to "spread enlightenment". Or at least, to spread "something".
:-)
Although by merely commenting I avoid arrest :-|
I wouldn't necessarily make that assumption.
Posted by: Ron O | October 25, 2024 at 08:48 AM
SS say: "I am motivated to keep Venessa Chang, Lina Khan and Julie Su in power (see bios below)."
How'd that motivation go for you, Sparky?
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | November 10, 2024 at 03:21 PM
Trump has already picked a strong woman to be his Chief of Staff. Susie Wiles is the first woman to ever hold the position. Maybe SS can get some satisfaction from that?
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/07/donald-trump-susie-wiles-chief-of-staff-00188346
Posted by: Keith | November 11, 2024 at 06:50 AM
A Democrat friend that has been down in the dumps after Harris lost was telling me that many of his Democrat friends that woted for Trump told him it was because the party that says they "support women" is the same party that "supports men beating women in sports". My friend is also disapointed that his party that "supports people of color" is now theparty "yelling at people of colow and blaming them for the Trump win"...
Posted by: South of Davis | November 11, 2024 at 11:14 AM
KO say, "Trump has already picked a strong woman to be his Chief of Staff. Susie Wiles is the first woman to ever hold the position. Maybe SS can get some satisfaction from that?"
Hilarious -- that was going to be my follow-up post
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | November 11, 2024 at 11:33 AM