Tag: kamala harris
Liberal Think Tank Urges  'Appropriate Restrictions' On Trans Athletes

Liberal Think Tank Urges  'Appropriate Restrictions' On Trans Athletes

"Ending the Backlash on LGBTQI+ Issues" is the title of the report out this week from the respected liberal think tank The Center for American Progress. As you might expect, the Center report urges Democrats to stand firm in supporting transgender soldiers and gender-transition care. But when it comes to girls' sports, it's not what you think.

This is what the liberal group has to say:

"The NCAA recently promulgated a restriction on transgender women playing in women's sports, a decision that it deemed appropriate for its level of competition and the sports it governs. Other associations, such as the National Intramural-Recreational Sports Association, have passed policies allowing students to participate according to their gender identity. This is where these decisions appropriately lie: with sports' governing bodies or schools themselves rather than with politicians. While local bodies and associations should minimize unnecessary exclusion, restrictions may be appropriate under some circumstances."

"Restrictions may be appropriate under some circumstances."

Hallelujah. Not that I'm in favor of restrictions. I'm just against losing elections over them.

"We hope that this lowers the temperature and lets us come out of this really scary moment for folks," said Caleb Smith, CAP's director of LGBTQI+ policy, who is transgender and a co-author of the paper.

Thank you, Caleb. You have, hopefully, given Democrats a place to stand without facing too much backlash.Americans are not voting based on transgender issues. They don't show up on the list with the war and the economy and affordability. But issues like transgender discrimination unfortunately play into that calculus of character, of whose side are you on, that has been wielded so effectively against Democratic candidates.

When Democratic Ohio gubernatorial candidate Amy Acton said last month that she does not "support boys playing in girls' sports," her statement prompted criticism from Democratic advocacy groups and liberal state lawmakers who accused her of dismissing the identities of trans people.

From what I've heard, Amy Acton is a great candidate. What are we doing attacking her? Of all the people to attack, she should not be one. Don't we want her to win?

An overwhelming majority of American voters don't think transgender girls should play girls' sports. I don't happen to be one of them. I feel bad for the handful of girls — and it's usually just a handful — who lose out most directly when a district adopts "appropriate restrictions."

But is it worth risking an election over?

Remember the ad of President Donald Trump's — the most effective of the campaign — using transgender care in prison to attack Kamala Harris for standing for they/them while Donald Trump stands for you. The Harris campaign said they had nothing to say to blunt it. That can't be right. Or it can't be right again.

Barney Frank of Massachusetts was the first openly gay member of Congress and a fierce fighter for gay rights. Before he died this past year, he gave a series of interviews, which I wrote about, in which he cautioned the party not to move too fast on transgender rights, and in particular girls' sports. Barney talked about how the gay rights movement moved toward marriage equality but didn't start there. We have work to be done, which starts with winning the election of people who are willing to recognize the full range of gender equality, even if it comes with some "appropriate restrictions."

The Center report concludes that "all athletes deserve fair competition and a level playing field." I believe that. And we shall achieve it one day. Caleb's report, and Barney's wisdom, will hopefully bring us closer to that day.

Susan Estrich is a celebrated feminist legal scholar, the first female president of the Harvard Law Review, and the first woman to run a U.S. presidential campaign. She has written eight books.

Hillary Is Right On Biden's Fatal Error, But Skips Troubling Questions About Harris

Hillary Is Right On Biden's Fatal Error, But Skips Troubling Questions About Harris

In a new interview this week, Hillary Clinton identified the key decision that resulted in President Donald Trump's election in 2024. It all boiled down, in her view, to a "terrible miscalculation" -- former President Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s decision to run for re-election. Mr. Biden made a "terrible mistake for himself, his legacy and for the country" in deciding to seek re-election at the age of 81. Had he decided to "pass the torch" and the Democratic Party had held a competitive nomination process, "whoever emerged from that contest — whether it was the vice president, or a governor, or a senator or anybody else — would have beaten Donald Trump."

Or, I would add, they would have had a better chance than Biden did.

Joe and Jill Biden clearly live in a state of denial with respect to Joe's unpopularity. In some respects, it's understandable: He wasn't a bad president and he left the country in better shape than it is now. So why shouldn't Jill think that even though she was afraid her husband was having a stroke during the debate with Trump, he should stay in the race and if he had, they both seem to believe, he would have beaten Trump. It's delusional thinking that must have been reinforced by the deep-seated loyalty of those who had been around him for so long. Sadly, the cost of that delusional thinking is being borne around the world.

Democratic Party is still struggling to figure out what went wrong. The unofficial official autopsy report, which the Party commissioned and then disowned, studiously avoided any criticism of Biden's decision to seek re-election, which cast doubt on the rest of the report.

Of course, the question remains: Was Kamala Harris the right candidate? That's the one that even Hillary avoided, pointing out that Kamala would have been a stronger candidate if she'd emerged from a competitive process. But would she have? Emerged from a competitive process, that is. Kamala Harris was the Vice President for an unpopular President. She was caught between defending the indefensible and attacking her own Administration. She never figured out how to walk that line in the general election and there's no reason to think it would have been easier in the primaries.

The Democratic Party is still struggling to figure out what went wrong. The unofficial official autopsy report, which the party commissioned and then disowned, studiously avoided any criticism of Biden's decision to seek re-election, which cast doubt on the rest of the report.

Of course, the question remains: Was Kamala Harris the right candidate? That's the one that even Hillary avoided, pointing out that Kamala would have been a stronger candidate if she'd emerged from a competitive process. But would she have? Emerged from a competitive process, that is. Kamala Harris was the Vice President for an unpopular President. She was caught between defending the indefensible and attacking her own Administration. She never figured out how to walk that line in the general election and there's no reason to think it would have been easier in the primaries.

The simple fact that Democrats need to accept is that Americans preferred the convicted felon to the vice president. They got to see them both, up close. Harris ran a better campaign than she gets credit for. She did put her best foot forward. She was well-financed. Experienced strategists surrounded her. She did not use a private email server, as Hillary did. She did not have investigators nipping at her heels, the way Hillary did. It was, considering everything, a smooth run. She just didn't win.

I have yet to hear any explanation for why she's a stronger candidate today than she was in 2024, and she would need to be a stronger candidate to defeat a Marco Rubio, for instance. Kamala is leading in most, although not all, of the early polls, but that is a matter of name recognition; perhaps more significant is the fact that a majority of Democrats, at this stage, favor candidates other than Harris. And Harris has done almost nothing since the election to distinguish herself as the party's leader.

Soon enough, we will be hearing more, not only from Gavin Newsom, who is already out there (and being investigated for it), but from J.B. Pritzker and Josh Shapiro and Pete Buttigieg, not to mention Jon Ossoff, Ro Khanna and AOC. The nomination process is flawed in many ways, but at least it's a test, one that Kamala will be forced to pass this time.


Susan Estrich is a celebrated feminist legal scholar, the first female president of the
Harvard Law Review, and the first woman to run a U.S. presidential campaign. She has written eight books.


Vance Invented A 'Fact' About Harvard To Make Himself Really Mad

Vance Invented A 'Fact' About Harvard To Make Himself Really Mad

Vice President JD Vance is either secretly Charles Xavier and can read the mind of every Harvard University employee, or he is making shit up again in order to push a MAGA talking point.

The self-proclaimed hillbilly boldly compared Harvard University to North Korea at the American Compass anniversary gala Tuesday, claiming that “at least 90—probably 95 percent” of Harvard’s faculty voted for Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election.

"But if you ask yourself—a foreign election, a foreign country's election, you say 80% of the people voted for one candidate. You would say, 'Oh, that's kind of weird,’ right? That's like, not a super healthy democracy,” he babbled.

“If you said, 'Oh, 95 percent of people voted for one party's candidate,' you would say, 'That's North Korea,” right, Vance said. “That is impossible in a true place of free exchange for that to happen."

If you’re wondering how Vance acquired these completely made-up voting statistics and decided to draw these connections, you are not alone. Even Fox News noted that the vice president made the claim “without evidence.”

Then again, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. just released an official government report citing fabricated sources, so it’s not unheard of for people in the Trump administration to pull data from thin air.

As for our eye-lined darling, using made-up information to push his longtime vendetta against higher education is just another example of his awkward attempts at being a relatable human.

When Vance was penning thoughts for conservative website National Review, he used vague sources he referred to as “friends” he knew to justify his narrative of the “college trap.”

And when the highly hypocritical Yale Law School grad is not dogging on Harvard, he is struggling to form sentences while interacting with workers at a donut shop to show voters that he, too, is a normal everyday guy who does normal, everyday things.

Then again, Vance can’t even keep his own family or sports fans on his side—so his historic unpopularity makes a lot of sense.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Bannon's 'Woke Right' Drives Split In MAGA Movement

Bannon's 'Woke Right' Drives Split In MAGA Movement

During the United States' 2024 presidential race, much of the Republican Party rallied about Donald Trump's campaign. A long list of Never Trump conservatives endorsed Democratic nominee Kamala Harris, but they tended to be people who were no longer influential figures in the GOP.

President-elect Trump's victory was not the "landslide" his supporters say it was; he won the popular vote by roughly 1.5 percent. But he has the support of most Republicans in Congress.

In an article published by the London Evening Standard on January 7, however, journalist Sarah Baxter (who heads the Marie Colvin Center in upstate New York) argues that major divisions are emerging in the MAGA movement as Trump prepares for his return to the White House.

"The fall-out is already consuming the MAGA movement and has led to a split between nativist flame-throwers like Steve Bannon and globalist tech-bros like Elon Musk, as they wrestle for power and influence in the second Trump era," Baxter explains. "Musk, the world's richest man and biggest troll with his own platform, X, has the advantage for now, but the spat has the potential to tear MAGA apart."

Part of this MAGA infighting, according to Baxter, is what she calls the "rise of the woke right" — which she describes as MAGA Republicans who have strong feelings of victimhood.

"Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration expert at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington, has identified five key features of the new woke right," Baxter writes. "These boil down to an obsession with identity politics; an ingrained sense of victimhood; a preoccupation with microaggressions; support for affirmative action for one’s own tribe; and a zero-sum mindset — somebody wins, somebody loses."

Baxter adds, "As with the far left, it can extend to glorifying foreign autocracies, such as Russia and Hungary."

Baxter describes "patriotic correctness" as "the right's version of political correctness."

"The biggest crybaby 'victims' are the January 6 rioters and their defenders, who have partially succeeded in rewriting the history of that day," Baxter says. "Those awaiting pardons by Trump fancifully promote themselves as unfairly punished patriots who stood up for 'We the People' in defense of the U.S. Constitution against hordes of Antifa and agent provocateurs in the FBI and 'deep state'…. The left's embrace of cancel culture has been enthusiastically adopted by the right."

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Trending

World