I've written about Prop 36 before. It's the California bill that would toughen penalties for retail theft and drug crimes. Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom doesn't like it, and scolded the voters who -- through the process of democracy -- brought it to the ballot.
They did so because Newsom, and the rest of the California Democratic Party, has failed in his duties to protect Californians from criminals. There is no world in which they can blame this on Republicans, try as they might. Democrats enjoy a supermajority in California, to the point where they can strangle any Republican proposals in committee.
All the state's failings -- the bloated budget deficits, the crime, homelessness -- are all easily laid at the feet of California Democrats.
As a candidate, Kamala has bragged about her record as a prosecutor and promised she'd be tough on crime.
So voting for Prop 36 should be a no-brainer for her, right?
Recommended
Wrong:
🚨 Kamala was just asked how she voted on California's Proposition 36, which would increase criminal penalties for shoplifters and drug traffickers:
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) November 3, 2024
"I am not gonna talk about the vote on that because, honestly, it's the Sunday before the election."pic.twitter.com/3wlkWkM0Ax
Gee, what happened to being tough on crime?
Spoiler alert: that's a lie. Kamala has no plans to be tough on crime. Be it shoplifting or illegal immigration.
She intends to be a lawfare president. That is, she'll be soft on actual crime but crack down on otherwise law-abiding citizens through the ruthless enforcement of little known and not often applied laws or the wholesale usurpation of their Constitutional Rights. If you want a good illustration of what that looks like, read up on Peanut the Squirrel and Fred the Raccoon, or look at her promise to enact gun confiscation (via unconstitutional 'buybacks') and open censorship of speech she doesn't like.
Kamala raised (and continues to raise) money for the Minnesota Freedom Fund, a bail program that set violent criminals loose after their arrests. Kamala herself donated to a group aiming to defund the police as recently as 2023.
I adhere to the Napoleon Bonaparte school of warfare: never stop your enemy when she is making a mistake.
This non-answer is a mistake. Kamala will win California by comfortable margins. Which means there is overlap between the voters who worked to bring Prop 36 to the ballot and the voters who will vote for her. She is not only ignoring the will of those voters (so much for democracy, huh?), but she's missing a real opportunity to demonstrate she can be more moderate on issues.
Most Americans would support tougher penalties for shoplifting and drug crimes. Both are a major problem; to the point where the media admit it's an issue that 'no one' knows how to fix (except everyone on X, that is). Shoplifting harms minority, low-income communities more than wealthy enclaves because stores that are repeatedly shoplifted leave. Walgreens is closing 1,200 locations because 25% of stores are unprofitable (theft will do that). 7-Eleven is closing stores, too. Crime is why stores lock up their items, requiring an employee to retrieve your toothpaste.
Rather than addressing the crime by, you know, putting people in jail, the Left screams about capitalism and says the stores are, to quote Rep. Ayanna Pressley, 'racist.'
It shows how out deeply of touch Democrats are with their own constituents. The Democrats in California who got Prop 36 on the ballot are absolutely from diverse backgrounds, including Black voters who are tired of seeing their communities ravaged by unchecked crime.
Are they racist? No.
Gavin Newsom opposes Prop 36 in part because it will put 'more black and brown' people in prison. For crimes that victimize black and brown people. They'd rather have black and brown voters be victims than crack down on criminals. That is unforgivable.
Undoubtedly, Kamala agrees with Pressley and Newsom. She's just smart enough to not say that part out loud.
Yet Kamala's non-answer speaks volumes: she voted 'No' on Prop 36. There's no reason to avoid the answer if she voted yes.
And she voted 'No', because her values have not changed.
