Skip to comments.Feinstein: It’s ‘Too Early’ to Tell Whether Kamala Harris Would Make a Good President
Posted on 03/08/2018 7:14:07 AM PST by MarvinStinson
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) said in a recent piece profiling her Democratic colleague Sen. Kamala Harris (Calif.) that it is "too early" to tell whether the potential 2020 candidate would make a good president.
Feinstein's remarks came in a Politico piece published Thursday and titled, "Kamala Harris keeps 'em guessing." The piece reflects on Harris' first year in the Senate and how she has become a rising star in the Democratic party, describing the senator as a "serious-minded lawmaker" and as someone who "bones up on policy and can engage on substance."
While the junior senator from California has been floated as a potential 2020 contender since early 2017, Feinstein said it is "too early" for her to say whether her colleague would be a good president. She called Harris her "good friend" and said she would like to see her stick around the Senate because "theres a certain degree of staying power" required to succeed there.
The profile piece also highlighted Harris' voting record, including a couple of votes that bucked the party leadership. Harris briefly angered Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) last month when she undercut other Democrats looking to strike a deal on immigration.
"She did some damage with her colleagues," said one Democratic senator anonymously.
Despite Feinstein's hesitance to say whether her fellow California lawmaker would be a good president, Harris wants to be part of Feinstein's 2018 reelection campaign and has vowed to support her over a progressive primary challenger.
The New York Times published a similar profile piece on Harris last summer that speculated about the senator's future ambitions. Feinstein was asked at the time about Harris' future as a national figure, prompting her to say Harris "just got here." She added that the junior senator was "on the way to becoming" a good friend.
Aside from the fact that blacks, indians, etc that were born in the U.S. weren't even citizens until the 14th and later. Even under the 14th, those born in the United States to foreign nationals, whether here legally or illegally, are not EVEN U.S. CITIZENS! Not to mention natural born citizens. No matter what the courts say.
Just read the Wiki page.
Her mother emigrated in 1960, father in 1961. She was born in 1964.
So neither parent had been in the Country long enough to become citizens, if they ever have.
So the ‘Natural’ question could be in play.
Not 1/2 black or 1/2 white OR MALE or FEMALE of all the possiblities, including mono-racially Black.
And that is unfortunate inasmuch as there are Conservative blacks who are generationally Americans naturally born who would finally address the idiotic treatment of their population by the facile dissembling and false demcratic party of islam, aztlan, and global marxism which would have all true born Americans destroyed to rule over us as Statists.
Which is EXACTLY what this biotch Karamelo Harris is ALL about— a kind of Imelda Marcos of Statist/Marxist. She and Cory Booker... the “new” blacks.
Slept her way to the top on Willie Brown’s Willie...
One of Arthur's parents and, supposedly, one of Obama's parents was a foreign national; neither was a foreign minister or ambassador from their respective countries.
The 14th Amendment history article you cite quotes the author of the citizenship clause of that amendment as stating that every person born within the limits of the United States is a citizen of the United States, with the singular exception of the children of foreign ambassadors. Arthur and (maybe) Obama are thus citizens of the United States. The author's statement indicates that they are citizens by virtue of natural law and national law. But does that make them natural born, according to the doctrine of original intent? Does the intent of the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment supersede what the Framers of the original Constitution intended?
If Senator Howard's view is correct, that means that the children of illegal aliens are U.S. citizens by virtue of their birth. Thus, they cannot be expelled any more than someone whose parents were native born.
Kamala Harris would be national disaster in the fast lane.
Willie can attest that she sucks.
As long as she keeps spouting idiotic nonsense and touting the idiotic libtard and progressive non-existent platforms, she is not going to win nothing but her current seat.
It’s early enough to tell that she would be a poor excuse for any kind of president.
Using the Constitution as a yardstick, I would say definitely, NO!
Not too early for me. Harris is a communist. Period. Her views reflect everything America should not be.
That’s all we need, another petulant and combative black “girlfrenn” in the White House. (”Uh uh uh, oh no you dih-unt!!”)
Arthur went to extreme measures to hide the evidence, his father’s birthplace was not what was important, but his citizenship at the time of his son’s birth was.
There were also questions of exactly where Arthur was born, all which proves that they knew what it meant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.