To the editor: Sen. Kamala Harris’ (D-Calif.) caution only deepens and further reveals what is already known — she is a consummate politician who will evade and obfuscate until she knows which answer will garner the higher approval rating. (“Kamala Harris can’t afford to be cagey about where she stands on the issues,” column, April 29)
While I think she has great potential in the long run, the bigger question for her is this:
You were elected by the voters of California to be their voice in the Senate for six years. Less than two years into that term, you decided to run for president. If you can’t be trusted to fulfill your duties and obligations as our senator, why would we ever vote for you as president?
David Higgins, Los Angeles
To the editor: Columnist George Skelton should be happy with a candidate who doesn’t give easy yes-or-no answers to complex questions.
Should Harris have had her mind made up about student loan debt forgiveness, another candidate’s issue? Maybe. Does the Boston Marathon bomber or a sexual predator deserve to be disenfranchised? Maybe.
Have we even had that conversation in America? Do we know what we even think? How about reparations to descendants of slaves? How many of us have talked about that?
So why are reporters raising these questions? To explore the candidate’s soul, or to push emotional buttons that will sell copy?
Perhaps the journalists interviewing Harris should impose some limits on themselves regarding trick, complex, oversimplified or emotionally loaded questions. Sometimes, “I don’t know yet” is the best answer.
Jack Drake, Redondo Beach