Race for CA Attorney General: Harris vs Cooley (Bell: crime rates, live)

[LexusNexus]

I just heard the debate between these two candidates, Kamala Harris and Steve Cooley. I thought Harris was far more impressive. She appeared far more intelligent and competent, and I got the feeling that she would more aggressively and effectively serve as AG. Opinions?

[ZhugeLiang]

Except that Cooley actually gets things done, there's the difference. I could care less about how a prospective AG debates.

[Bulldogdad]

Just like all liberals, supporting a person that refused to seek the death penalty for an illegal alien who gun down a Father and two sons. All three of which were AMERICAN CITIZENS. If this backstabbing liberal freak of a D.A. wont protect the citizen of S.F. from criminal scum like that, then how will she run the state. She has already stated there are laws that she will not enforce like the death penalty. WHO IN THE HELL MADE THIS WITCH A LAW MAKER. Best thing for this state is if she gets a taste of what that father and his sons got. Thats justice you can believe in.

[majoun]

I don't like either one, but if I had to choose between the two I'd hold my nose and pick Harris because Cooley has been so busy going after medical marijuana dispensaries that he's neglected going after pedopriests - and his buddies in the church hierarchy who protect them - and who has taken a hands-off stance when it came to political corruption cases (Cooley's office never did anything about the shenanigans in Bell before the scandal broke). Some Catholic prosecutors take the view that their faith obligates them to go after predatory priests and church hierarchy who protect them, as the principles of Christianity should be more important than allegiance to the leadership, but Cooley is not amongst them. He feels that allegiance to retiring Cardinal Mahoney is allegiance to the faith.

Harris has increased the DA's office conviction rate by selectively refusing to prosecute certain cases in which doubt exists as to the suspect's guilt, and I have plenty of other problems with her, but she is the lesser evil here. I would rather not vote for her, but if it means stopping Cooley from getting higher office, by all means it is worth it to vote for her.

[415 Native]

Originally Posted by bulldogdad

Just like all liberals, supporting a person that refused to seek the death penalty for an illegal alien who gun down a Father and two sons. All three of which were AMERICAN CITIZENS. If this backstabbing liberal freak of a D.A. wont protect the citizen of S.F. from criminal scum like that, then how will she run the state. She has already stated there are laws that she will not enforce like the death penalty. WHO IN THE HELL MADE THIS WITCH A LAW MAKER. Best thing for this state is if she gets a taste of what that father and his sons got. Thats justice you can believe in.

Yeah, so a guy spending all his time going after medical marijuana would be a great AG. You have an anger problem. Not a surprise considering you seem to hate liberals. What's with all the fake rage the far right seems to have.

[LexusNexus]

Originally Posted by ZhugeLiang

Except that Cooley actually gets things done, there's the difference. I could care less about how a prospective AG debates.

You didn't hear the debate did you? She accomplished far more than Cooley did and this was clearly spelled out during the debate. She seemed far his superior. He appeared like yet another guy relying on the good ol boy network to slide him into a position over yet another far more qualified minority or woman. Harris appeared to be far more qualified, articulate, better educated, and far more effective in her job. Cooley appeared like Mr. Conventional, unimaginative McGruff.

Listen to the debate.

[LexusNexus]

Originally Posted by bulldogdad

Just like all liberals, supporting a person that refused to seek the death penalty for an illegal alien who gun down a Father and two sons. All three of which were AMERICAN CITIZENS. If this backstabbing liberal freak of a D.A. wont protect the citizen of S.F. from criminal scum like that, then how will she run the state. She has already stated there are laws that she will not enforce like the death penalty. WHO IN THE HELL MADE THIS WITCH A LAW MAKER. Best thing for this state is if she gets a taste of what that father and his sons got. Thats justice you can believe in.

Well, in the first place, I'm an Independent. If there was one Conservative candidate who had any ideas that I thought might help solve the problems which plague this country or state of city, ideas which were superior but not divisive, ideas that didn't scream of racial insensitivity, ideas that didn't favor those benefiting from unearned privilege, I would support that candidate. But unfortunately, we are being punished with the most pathetic brand of Conservative politics and politicians since the days of the Jim Crow South. It is quite a shame. Even worse are the people who support these simpletons.

Failure to support a candidate because she didn't seek the death penalty for an illegal alien who killed american citizens is certainly a very, very surface analysis of that situation. What about all the americans who kill americans? George Bush LIED to gain congressional approval to send thousands of americans overseas to die fighting a war that didn't need to happen. There were no WMDs. He LIED. This country was not in any imminent danger. He lied and said it was. There wasn't sufficient provocation to support an immediate strike. Bush killed Americans unnecessarily, not only by committing us to an unnecessary war, but by perpetually lying about the mismanagement of that war. Should we seek the death penalty for this liar as well, a person who killed thousands of Americans and ruined the lives of millions of Americans? Because he's a conservative, I suppose you think not.

A deeper analysis is what is preferred here, but thanks for giving me yet another reason for supporting Harris.

[415 Native]

Originally Posted by Alexus

Well, in the first place, I'm an Independent. If there was one Conservative candidate who had any ideas that I thought might help solve the problems which plague this country or state of city, ideas which were superior but not divisive, ideas that didn't scream of racial insensitivity, ideas that didn't favor those benefiting from unearned privilege, I would support that candidate. But unfortunately, we are being punished with the most pathetic brand of Conservative politics and politicians since the days of the Jim Crow South. It is quite a shame. Even worse are the people who support these simpletons.

Failure to support a candidate because she didn't seek the death penalty for an illegal alien who killed american citizens is certainly a very, very surface analysis of that situation. What about all the americans who kill americans? George Bush LIED to gain congressional approval to send thousands of americans overseas to die fighting a war that didn't need to happen. There were no WMDs. He LIED. This country was not in any imminent danger. He lied and said it was. There wasn't sufficient provocation to support an immediate strike. Bush killed Americans unnecessarily, not only by committing us to an unnecessary war, but by perpetually lying about the mismanagement of that war. Should we seek the death penalty for this liar as well, a person who killed thousands of Americans and ruined the lives of millions of Americans? Because he's a conservative, I suppose you think not.

A deeper analysis is what is preferred here, but thanks for giving me yet another reason for supporting Harris.

Don't mention Bush, they will get on you for bringing up that fool of a president. According to them, he is off limits and everything is Obama's fault. Never-mind that his 8 years can cause a lasting affect into to the next presidency, like any presidency, good or bad. Meanwhile these same people STILL bring up Bill Clinton, but ohhh no, don't you dare mention Bush or you'll get the sarcastic, "It's Bush's fault".

[DowntownVentura]

Originally Posted by Alexus

<snip>

Failure to support a candidate because she didn't seek the death penalty for an illegal alien who killed american citizens is certainly a very, very surface analysis of that situation. What about all the americans who kill americans? George Bush LIED to gain congressional approval to send thousands of americans overseas to die fighting a war that didn't need to happen. There were no WMDs. He LIED. This country was not in any imminent danger. He lied and said it was. There wasn't sufficient provocation to support an immediate strike. Bush killed Americans unnecessarily, not only by committing us to an unnecessary war, but by perpetually lying about the mismanagement of that war. Should we seek the death penalty for this liar as well, a person who killed thousands of Americans and ruined the lives of millions of Americans? Because he's a conservative, I suppose you think not.
<snip>

Wow, did you ever go off course. I think the point is, an Attorney General (and District Attorney) should enforce and prosecute the laws of the state, not just the ones she likes. If she finds that supporting all of California's laws are not possible, she shouldn't be in that position.

[Phil306]

Notice the only people supporting Harris are liberals from SF? Harris is a liar. If you think she will prosecute death penalty cases, because it's the will of the people, I have a bridge in Utah to sell you. She is nothing more then another, lying, self serving, politician.

Just wait until Jerry Brown and Harris run the state. Rose Bird all over again. And in a few years, people will start yelling about the crime rates in this state. And, I'll laugh at you all...