Good morning. It’s Saturday, Sept. 7, and no, this God-awful warmth wave in L.A. isn’t over but. Right here’s what’s occurring in Opinion.
For the primary time in his life, Donald Trump shall be on TV with out being the focal point. Most individuals shall be watching the individual standing subsequent to him. The eagerly awaited (and almost canceled) presidential debate between him, the twice-impeached ex-commander in chief, and Kamala Harris, the vice chairman, is the final single occasion we are able to depend on to affect this deadlocked election earlier than ballots begin being counted Nov. 5.
After 9 years of MAGA pageantry, this nation is aware of Donald Trump. It is aware of far much less about Harris, despite the fact that she has been vice chairman since 2021 and, earlier than then, served as a U.S. senator from California, the state’s lawyer common and the district lawyer of San Francisco. She gained her first election in 2003, proper when Trump was taping the primary season of his career-resuscitating TV present, “The Apprentice.”
So in California, we’ve seen Harris debate as a candidate arguing solely on her personal behalf (versus defending Joe Biden within the 2020 vice presidential debate or attempting to get a phrase in edgewise within the Democratic main debates of 2019). One such debate was in 2010 towards then-L.A. County Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley, when she was working for California lawyer common; one other got here in 2016 towards then-Rep. Loretta Sanchez, an Orange County Democrat, within the race for an open U.S. Senate seat. (For the file, The Instances’ editorial board endorsed Harris in 2016, however not in 2010.)
I re-watched each debates this week, on the lookout for clues on what to anticipate towards Trump on Tuesday. Harris’ 2016 U.S. Senate debate concerned an opponent who (to place it charitably) didn’t come throughout as, nicely, senatorial. Sanchez infamously ended her closing assertion with a “dab,” a heads-down, arms-out gesture that each one the cool youngsters had been doing on the time. It capped a efficiency through which moderators needed to increase their voices to remind Sanchez she wanted to cease talking (sound acquainted?). Harris, who attacked Sanchez over her absence on key Home votes and committee hearings, ably placed on a poker face as her opponent rambled.
Her 2010 debate with Cooley was totally different. Although spirited, their trade stayed targeted on the problems of the day and even veered into borderline wonkish, constitutional questions having to do with prosecutorial discretion. The talk resulted in a gaffe that arguably doomed Cooley: He unashamedly stated he would accumulate his public pension whereas serving as lawyer common, to complement what he known as the “absurdly low” lawyer common wage of about $150,000. If folks keep in mind something from the talk, it’s that.
And that’s unlucky, as a result of the talk supplied a transparent, substantive distinction between the candidates at a pivotal time for felony justice reform in California. Cooley and Harris exchanged views on three-strikes sentencing, whether or not to defend probably unconstitutional poll initiatives in federal court docket, imposing immigration legal guidelines and extra. Each pointedly highlighted variations the place they existed with out sounding petty. If I had made my determination primarily based solely on that debate, I might have voted for Harris; in the end, I voted for Cooley, a Republican whose deft administration of the sprawling L.A. County D.A.’s workplace positioned him nicely to be lawyer common.
With Trump on the stage, nobody expects a debate like that Tuesday. What you must anticipate, primarily based on Harris’ previous performances in California, is for one of many candidates to exhibit self-discipline and poise, and to know when to face again and let her opponent wreck himself.
This could possibly be Kamala Harris’ Achilles’ heel with essential undecided voters: Her coverage proposals on immigration, housing, company taxation and inflation both depart from her earlier statements on these points or are unworkable, writes Lanhee J. Chen, a Republican who suggested Mitt Romney’s presidential marketing campaign and ran for state controller in 2012.
Californians want electrical invoice aid. Lawmakers didn’t ship it. Californians pay a number of the highest electrical energy payments within the nation. However that’s not going to vary any time quickly, the Instances editorial board writes: “Months of debate over a complete bundle to cut back month-to-month payments for patrons of PG&E, Edison and San Diego Gasoline and Electrical withered into virtually nothing by the tip of the legislative session final week.”
The listing of musicians who’ve demanded that Trump cease utilizing their songs is extremely lengthy. ABBA, Adele, even the Village Individuals. Columnist Robin Abcarian counts no less than 41 artists who’ve objected to the previous president’s marketing campaign utilizing their music at marketing campaign rallies. Simply because the artists complain and threaten to sue, nevertheless, doesn’t imply the campaigns should cease utilizing their work — however no less than John McCain and Barack Obama had been respectful sufficient to give up taking part in the music of singers and songwriters who weren’t OK with it.
Having fun with this text? Take into account subscribing to the Los Angeles Instances
Your assist helps us ship the information that issues most. Change into a subscriber.
Take it from a nonbinary professor: Don’t make college students state their pronouns on Day One. “Once I stand earlier than my class with my mannish physique in ladies’s garments, college students know the rating,” writes McGill College legislation professor Darren Rosenblum. “However I need to make it clear that my classroom is a protected area the place folks can determine, or not.”
How can we keep away from AI-enhanced makes an attempt to govern the election? Elon Musk posted an AI-generated audio clip of Kamala Harris saying issues she by no means stated. In New Hampshire, a pretend Joe Biden voice was utilized in a robocall. Ann G. Skeet and John P. Pelissero say it’s too late for coverage adjustments to make a distinction this election, so voters themselves want to look at for clues that the data they’re consuming was generated by synthetic intelligence.
Extra from opinion
From our columnists
From visitor contributors
From the editorial board
Letters to the Editor
