#

Kamala Harris isn’t savvy. She does well when she’s been prepped within inches of her life, as she was before the recent presidential debate; and she comes across as sharp and relevant if you put her side by side with Donald “Those Dirty Haitians Stole My Pants” Trump.

But on her own, she’s about as brilliant as the emergency understudy who gets called in to play Evita 10 minutes before the curtains open. She gets points for showing up and trying, but the actual performance is pretty feeble.

But she is hitting one point directly on the nose: She’s identified the power of Catholic self-loathing.

Catholics are swing voters, and swing voters are powerful and unpredictable. A slim majority of Catholics favor Trump, but it’s close enough to reveal a massive division in the ranks. So you’d think Harris would be treading carefully so as not to alienate that precious margin of undecided Catholics, and trying to bolster the 47 percent who do like her.

Instead, she’s breaking tradition and snubbing the Al Smith Dinner, an annual historical event, named for the first Catholic to run for president, that raises thousands of dollars for charity.

This isn’t an aberration. She’s unabashedly pro-abortion, recklessly spreading misinformation about who really caused the death of Amber Thurman (who died because of unsafe abortion pills and criminally incompetent healthcare, not from any abortion ban). Even Catholic leftists would be hard-pressed to find anything compatible with Catholic social teaching in her campaign. She and Biden were just as hard on migrants as Trump was; and her party recently quit opposing capital punishment. And she certainly hasn’t done anything to walk back her recent history of lashing out against Catholics. In 2019, then-Sen. Harris called out judicial nominee Brian Buescher for the high crime of having joined the Knight of Columbus as a teen, implying that simply to be a Christian in public makes one unfit for public office.

But at the debate with Trump, she tried talking directly to Catholics like me.  She said:

“[O]ne does not have to abandon their faith or deeply held beliefs to agree the government, and Donald Trump certainly, should not be telling a woman what to do with her body.”

At first, I was so irritated. Who is this woman telling me how to manage my conscience?

But there’s a kind of brilliance to her arrogance. Even if her campaign doesn’t understand why a person of faith would recoil from unrestricted abortion, it sure can tell we see through Trump. We know he was never pro-life and never will be. They see how we loathe the way he and his party treat women and the vulnerable. And they know there’s a very fine line between disgust for someone else and disgust for oneself. Both can be powerful motivators.

I’m a registered Republican, an ardently pro-life, faithful Catholic never-Trumper who keeps walking into the voting booth with one firm idea: Trump is the most dangerous candidate, because of his words and his behavior, and because of his awful power to encourage Americans to debase themselves. So I held my nose and voted for Hillary, and then for Biden, because I wanted to stop Trump, period. I don’t know how I’ll vote this year, but it won’t be for Trump.

But I can still recall my growing horror as more and more of my fellow Catholics did fall in with him, and started professing real love for him and his appalling ideas. I was baffled, angry, and ashamed. We should know better. I still feel I should have somehow done more to stop him and make at least my fellow Catholics see who he really is.

So when Kamala does stuff like skipping the Al Smith Dinner, maybe she’s doing it because she’s anti-Catholic. But more likely, she’s doing it because she knows burnt-out Catholics don’t care about stuff like that anymore. They don’t see themselves as part of the old guard American Catholic voting bloc. They can’t even go in the church basement and eat donuts after Mass anymore, because fellowship hour is just a bunch of dudes yuking it up over BBQ cat memes and Willie Brown jokes.

If Trump invites Americans to debase themselves, Kamala invites Catholics to lean into their self-loathing. Be ashamed to stand up for what their faith teaches, be ashamed of their fellow Catholics who threw in with Trump, and most of all, be ashamed of yourselves. Here, crawl in under the dubious shelter of this vote for Kamala, you poor sap.

She smells that misery in the air, and she knows that people are desperate for some relief. She doesn’t have to appeal to Catholics. She doesn’t even have to stop disliking Catholics. All she has to do is not be Trump. She’s counting on people being too exhausted to hope for more.

Democratic candidates are scrambling for support in the growing crypto currency sphere, and many want their party’s leadership to change the perception that Democrats are hostile to the emerging financial technology.

But New Hampshire’s Rep. Chris Pappas (D-Manchester) isn’t one of them.

A group of congressional Democrats and candidates, including Maggie Goodlander and Colin Van Ostern, recently wrote to Democratic National Committee chair Jamie Harrison asking for changes to the party’s platform to make it more friendly to Bitcoin and other forms of cryptocurrency. Crypto support could be vital in key swing states, they said in the letter.

“From an electoral standpoint, crypto and blockchain technologies have an outsized impact in ensuring victories up and down the ballot. Crypto is at the top of voters’ minds in swing states, and a balanced approach to crypto that spurs innovation while protecting consumers is a net positive for policymakers and candidates,” they wrote.

Pappas was the only major New Hampshire Democrat running for Congress this cycle who declined to sign.

Instead of embracing crypto, Pappas has amassed a record of supporting bills that would hurt the crypto industry. 

Pappas voted against Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act which proposed protections for crypto buyers. Pappas also voted against the CBDC Anti-Surveillance State Act, which would block the Federal Reserve from creating its own digital currency, giving the powerful bank the ability to run surveillance on crypto users.

Pappas sponsored a bill targeting the use of crypto to purchase drugs on the so-called dark web, linking the use of crypto to criminal activity. His bill would create a task force to study the use of crypto in online crimes.

President Joe Biden’s administration, especially the Securities and Exchange Commission, has been aggressive toward the crypto industry, alienating many potential supporters and donors. With Vice President Kamala Harris leading the ticket, Democrats like Goodlander and Van Ostern hope to see change in the party’s stance. 

“We believe this previous hostility does not reflect our Party’s progressive, forward-looking, and inclusive values. A refreshed leader of the ticket represents an opportunity to change that perception,” their letter states. 

According to the Financial Times, Harris’ team is already working on a “reset” with crypto industry leaders, stressing that under her leadership the party will be “pro-business, responsible business.”

Harris needs to play catch up with former President Donald Trump. A one-time crypto skeptic who once called it a “disaster waiting to happen,” Trump is now firmly behind the industry. He gave a keynote speech over the weekend at a Bitcoin conference in Nashville, Tenn., embracing the technology and calling for establishing a national Bitcoin stockpile before ending his speech in typically Trumpian manner.

“Have a good time with your Bitcoin and your crypto and everything else that you’re playing with,” Trump said.

Trump has also pledged to fire Biden’s anti-crypto Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Gary Gensler.

Crypto is popular among New Hampshire Libertarians, and libertarian-leaning Republicans. Nationally, key voters who are political independents are more engaged in crypto currency than either Republicans or Democrats. According to Goodlander and Van Ostern, the technology is gaining ground among those traditionally part of the Democratic coalition.

“Data shows that digital assets are being adopted at higher rates among Gen Z, Black, and Latino Americans, and immigrant communities–key constituencies of the Democratic party–compared to traditional financial products. These technologies are revolutionizing opportunities for these communities, reflecting their transformative potential,” their letter states.

Crypto support comes with potential drawbacks, as Pappas can attest. Last year he was dogged by the campaign money he took from disgraced fraudster Sam Bankman-Fried’s FTX crypto exchange. 

Bankman-Fried was convicted of fraud, money laundering, and conspiracy and ordered to repay $11 billion stolen from investors. During the investigation, it was uncovered that Bankman-Fried and his cohorts made 300 illegal political donations, including thousands to New Hampshire Democrats.

Pappas eventually gave his $2,900 FTX donation to a charity, while Democratic Sen. Maggie Hassan gave up $30,000. 

When Sen. Kamala Harris dropped out of the Democratic presidential primary, she blamed it on her inability to raise money. Some pundits, both left and right, said her lack of a clear message was the problem.

But others saw a more disturbing force at work: White people. In particular, the white Democratic primary voters in Iowa and New Hampshire.

“Iowa is 91 percent white. New Hampshire is 94 percent white,” Rolling Stone senior writer Tim Dickinson tweeted in reaction to Harris’s exit from the 2020 field. “These states are off the charts white, and yet the Democratic Party gives the electorates in these states effective veto power over the nomination process.”

“It’s structural racism masquerading as tradition,” Dickinson said.

Nate Silver of the left-leaning website FiveThirtyEight wrote, “If the Democratic Party wants a field that’s representative of its members and its voters, it probably shouldn’t have two states as white as Iowa and New Hampshire vote first every year.”

“Having two super white states go first is a big disadvantage to nonwhite candidates,” Silver added.

Defenders of the New Hampshire #FITN primary are used to hearing the “too white” complaint. “You go to New Hampshire. There are not any minorities there. Nobody lives there,” then-Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told the Washington Post back in 2015.

What’s new is the more overt suggestion that white New Hampshire Democrats are rejecting candidates of color out of bigotry. That they’re participants in the “structural racism.”

“I’ve seen the bile, the anger, from my family members, to people in the Congressional Black Caucus, to leaders of color across this country who just don’t understand how we’ve gotten to a point now where there’s more billionaires in the 2020 race than there are black people,” Sen. Cory Booker said in response to Harris dropping out of the race.

Progressive writer Lauren Duca was more direct, telling her nearly 500,000 Twitter followers:

“Kamala Harris officially ended her campaign today, which means that all of the candidates who currently qualify for the December Democratic debate are white. White supremacy is not just a Fox News problem, folks.”

So is it a New Hampshire Democratic Party problem?

“I have heard all the arguments and don’t buy any of them,” former Democratic National Committeeman and longtime New Hampshire strategist Terry Shumaker told NHJournal. “They certainly don’t explain Govs. Inslee, Hickenlooper and Bullock dropping out — as well as Beto and others dropping out even earlier — they are all white.”

Shumaker notes that “an African American has won our primary, as has a woman and a Mormon.  Jesse Jackson ran competitively here in the 1980s. He didn’t blame not winning on the voters.”

True, but progressives are. Their argument isn’t just that “New Hampshire voters are too white,” but rather this whiteness prevents them from supporting candidates of color. Call it “racism,” “bigotry” or “lack of wokeness”–it’s a commentary on New Hampshire Democratic primary voters.

“I don’t agree that they are saying Iowa and New Hampshire are racist,” New Hampshire Democratic Committeewoman Kathy Sullivan told NHJournal. “They are saying that having more diversity among voters would better reflect the Democratic electorate. I think the DNC addressed that by having Nevada and South Carolina added to the calendar.”

“I would also add that Barack Obama came very close to winning the New Hampshire primary in ’08, and he won the general election here twice.”

Then there are the New Hampshire polling averages for Castro, Booker and Harris, which are similar to their numbers nationally. Yes, when she dropped out Harris’s RealClearPolitics average was about half a point lower in the Granite State (2.7 percent) compared to her national numbers (3.4 percent), but both Booker and Castro are actually outperforming their nationwide average in New Hampshire.

Even in her racially-diverse home state of California, Harris had been stuck in single digits and well out of the top tier. Are white voters to blame?

And yet it remains the case that the top six Republican frontrunners in 2016 were more racially diverse (one African American and two Hispanic candidates) than the Democrats today. And many on the left see bias at work.

“Women are held to a different standard,” Rev. Al Sharpton said on Tuesday, “and black women especially.”

Former HUD Secretary Julian Castro, whose 2020 POTUS candidacy has rarely cleared the 5 percent support mark, has long argued that New Hampshire’s demographics were a problem for Democrats, going so far as to compare it to what he deems Republican voter suppression.

Despite the fact that she’s repeatedly referred to as “the female Obama,”  and that she formally announced her candidacy on Martin Luther King Day, could it be that the most apt description of Democrat Sen. Kamala Harris in the 2020 POTUS race is… Hillary Rodham Clinton?

The comparison comes from the fact that the 54-year-old former California Attorney General appears to be running on a Clinton-esque combination of identity politics and moderate Democratic policy.

“The way Harris is likely to position herself on policy issues during the campaign — liberal as any candidate on noneconomic issues but not as liberal on economic issues as, say, Bernie Sanders — echoes Hillary Clinton’s platform in 2016,” writes Perry Bacon, Jr. at the FiveThirtyEight website.   At the same time, Sen. Harris’s embrace of identity politics is unabashed and beyond dispute.

Harris talks extensively about her biography– she would be the first woman, the first black woman and first person of Asian descent to serve as POTUS–and she openly defends identity politics as part of Democratic Party ideology, suggesting the phrase itself is a divisive slur.  And like Hillary Clinton, Sen. Harris highlights what she claims will be the unique challenges of attempting to break the glass ceiling as a woman of color running for the White House.

“Let’s be honest. It’s going to be ugly,” Harris told MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski in December. “When you break things, it is painful. And you get cut. And you bleed.”

But will the Democratic POTUS primary really be a “bloody” battle for the four women (Gabbard, Gillibrand, Harris and Warren) already in the race? According to a Suffolk poll in September, while most voters still claim to be gender-neutral at the ballot box, the percentage of voters who would prefer to vote for a woman is twice as high as the number who would prefer a male candidate. That sentiment is highest among the most liberal voters–more than a third of whom say they want to vote for a woman. Those voters will have a disproportionate impact on the primary.

Add in the historical pattern of black voters strongly supporting black candidates, and it’s no surprise that many political prognosticators have labeled Harris the Democrats’ front-runner.

So playing the identity card as hard as Hillary #ImWithHer Clinton did in 2016 looks like a winner. But what about the Clinton centrism?

Admittedly the word “centrist” is problematic. To most Republicans, and probably many more Americans, the idea that Hillary Clinton was a centrist or moderate candidate seems counter-intuitive. And not long ago, it would have been. But for Democratic primary voters–particularly in the age of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez politics–Mrs. Clinton is a relative moderate. Is Kamala Harris, too?

“I don’t know any progressives who would support her, largely due to her record as district attorney and attorney general in California,” longtime progressive activist Ted Bosen of New Hampshire told Inside Sources.  “Next to Biden, I believe she is the least favorite prospect among us. But she has support among Hillary Clinton supporters.”

And a recent Vanity Fair profile of Sen. Harris included this nugget: “Have you seen her speak?” a (male) Democratic strategist says of Harris. “It feels very Hillary-like.”

As the liberal journal Jacobin reports: “Harris’s rise has produced a fiery debate among liberals and the Left. Leftists and progressives have come out in strong opposition to Harris’s candidacy, with some declaring #NeverKamala and some high-profile Bernie Sanders supporters, such as National Nurses United executive director RoseAnn DeMoro, making clear their lack of enthusiasm for her candidacy.”

“I expect Harris to struggle with The Left,” Bacon writes in his analysis for FiveThirtyEight. “Harris’ professional life has been as a prosecutor and some on the left already are highlighting what they view as flaws in her record — being too hard on low-level offenders of crimes like truancy but not aggressive enough in taking on those accused of white-collar offenses, for example.”

In a press conference on Monday, Harris said she rejected the notion “that you either have to be tough on crime or soft on crime. We should be smart on crime.” However, some critics suggest she tried to burnish her “not-soft-on-crime” credentials by defending police and prosecutors in cases when they didn’t deserve it.   She also bragged in the past about increasing her conviction rates and sending more people to prison, while also promoting liberal social issues like same-sex marriage popular on the California Left. This style of “third-way” politics is straight from the Clinton playbook.

Not everyone agrees with the Clinton/Kamala comparison.

“Their profiles as candidates couldn’t more different,” DC Democratic consultant Joel Payne told InsideSources. “Sen. Harris is a fresh face with relatively low name ID and a lot of room to define herself to voters. Hillary Clinton had been a household name for 15 years before her runs for the White House.”

Payne, who advised the 2016 Clinton campaign says the Democrats he talks to “believe that black voters and, in particular, black women are the key voting bloc in 2020 and Kamala Harris is very well positioned to appeal to those voters.”

But the comparisons are likely to continue, in part because of the campaign team Harris has assembled. Her campaign chair is her sister–and former Clinton senior advisor– Maya Harris. Her general counsel is Hillary’s former campaign attorney Marc Elias, who made headlines when it was discovered his firm was the funnel for Clinton’s campaign to pay oppo-research outfit Fusion GPS, at the center of the “Russia dossier” story.

Other top Kamala Harris staffers include Hillary’s deputy national finance director Angelique Cannon; and David Huynh, the Clinton campaign’s director of delegate operations and ballot access whose job at the Democratic convention in 2016 was to keep protesting Bernie Sanders’ supporters off TV.

Nobody is going to mistake Kamala Harris for Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia. By historical standards, she’s one of the most liberal candidates to ever seek the presidency, as her announcement statement makes clear.  But in the #NeedToImpeach/#Medicare4All world of Democratic primary voters of today, virtually every candidate is (at least) as progressive as Harris, and without the “third-way” politics baggage or a staff straight off Hillary Clinton’s campaign bus.

It’s very possible that Kamala Harris’s identity politics can overcome the perception that she’s not progressive enough. But with so many strong progressive candidates in the field, maybe not.

When Massachusetts Sen. John F. Kennedy ran for president in 1960, he defended Catholics and their place in American public life.  “If this election is decided on the basis that 40 million [Catholic] Americans lost their chance of being president on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser,” Kennedy said during his campaign, rejecting the suggestion of a religious test for public service.

Fast-forward to today where likely 2020 POTUS candidate Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) is suggesting exactly that.  As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Harris questioned a judicial candidate’s fitness for the bench due to his membership in the Knights of Columbus.

“I wish I could say I was surprised,” Chuck McGee, head of the Concord, NH Knights of Columbus, told NHJournal. “These are the struggles that Catholics are subjected to, it’s what we experience.  Our religious beliefs are under attack.”

Questioning a public servant’s religion may be ugly and perhaps even unconstitutional. But could it also be smart Democratic primary politics in the key First-In-The-Nation state of New Hampshire?

In prepared questions for Brian Buescher, a nominee to the federal bench in Nebraska, Sen. Harris called the Knights of Columbus an “all-male society” and demanded “Were you aware that the Knights of Columbus opposed a woman’s right to choose when you joined the organization?”

She also attacked the Knights for supporting traditional marriage and asked “Were you aware that the Knights of Columbus opposed marriage equality when you joined the organization?”

Buescher, a lifelong Catholic, answered: “I do not recall if I was aware whether the Knights of Columbus had taken a position on same-sex marriage at the time I joined at the age of 18.”

Sen. Harris’s implication is clear: If you believe the Catholic Church’s teachings on abortion and same-sex marriage, you may not be fit to hold a public office like a judgeship.  And she’s not alone. Sen. Mazie Hirono, another Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, called the Knights of Columbus “extreme” and asked Buescher if he would “end his membership to avoid any appearance of bias.”

“It’s very troubling. It’s a matter of singling out members of Catholic faith,”  NH State Deputy for the Knights of Columbus Glenn Camley told NHJournal. “Many other faiths, including Islam, have similar teaching on life and marriage. It’s not the theology. They’re making an example out of Catholics.”

Camley joined other KoC members, including the national leader Carl Anderson in pointing out that their organization was formed in part to confront anti-Catholic bigotry from organizations like the KKK.

In a message to his membership on Thursday Anderson said “such attacks on the basis of our Catholic faith are hardly new.”  He rejected the notion that the Knights are upholding some unusual view or alternative dogma that might raise questions about their organization. “Simply put, our positions are now, and have always been, Catholic positions.”

In other words, Sen. Harris’s criticism of Judge Buescher is a critique of every traditional, practicing Catholic in New Hampshire. And it’s a critique Catholics like NH state representative (and Fourth Degree Knight) Walt Stapleton have come to expect.  “So anti-Catholicism raises its ugly head in American politics—what else is new?” the Claremont Republican told NHJournal.  “Sen. Harris’s pejorative questions for a Catholic nominee certainly reflect that.”

Several commentators, including Rev. Eugene F. Rivers III of the Seymour Institute for Black Church and Policy Studies, have pointed out that Harris’s approach could be viewed as unconstitutional. “There is no place for a religious test like this in our country,” Rev. Rivers said. “Our constitution forbids it and elected leaders should know better than to try to impose it.”

But elections aren’t won or lost on constitutionality. They’re won with votes. Practicing Catholics in New Hampshire may have a legitimate complaint about Sen. Harris’s views, but will they hurt her in the First-In-The-Nation primary voters?

“No, it won’t hurt her,” Democratic State Sen. Lou D’Allesandro told NHJournal.  D’Allesandro, viewed as a key player in the New Hampshire Democratic POTUS primaries, is a Third Degree Knight himself, but he doesn’t see a political downside for Sen. Harris. “The day when the Catholic Church played a major role in our elections has passed.”

The data appear to back him up.

According to a 2014 Pew Research survey, New Hampshire is one of the most secular states in the country. Fewer than half of all residents ever attend a worship service and only 33 percent of Granite Staters say religion is important in their lives.  And while Massachusetts may be considered a hub of Catholicism, just 26 percent of New Hampshire residents call themselves Catholic. The largest religious identification in the Granite State?

“None.”

And that’s the state as a whole. In a UNH poll of Democratic primary voters in the 2012 cycle, 61 percent said they rarely/never attend church. Only a third of white Democrats nationwide believe in the biblical concept of God, according to a Pew Research Survey taken last year, far below their GOP counterparts.

Steve Krueger, president of the Boston-based group Catholic Democrats, doesn’t agree. He called the statements by Sens. Harris and Hirono “unfortunate.”

“I was speaking to one of our Michigan members and he was extremely upset,” Krueger said. “Non-Catholics don’t realize how much the Knights of Columbus are a part of our Catholic community.”

“Our supporters are very liberal,  very Catholic and–the party should remember– strong Democrats.”  Krueger points out that, while New Hampshire is secular, “a small shift in the Catholic vote in states like Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania in 2016 would have made Hillary Clinton president today.”

But to get to the swing states in November, you have to win early primary states like New Hampshire.  And in a state where the Democratic candidates for governor took the most extreme pro-choice positions—including support for taxpayer-funded, late-term abortions—it may make more sense to confront the Catholic church than reach out to its members. However unpleasant practicing Catholics in the Granite State might find it.

“Our order has a strict no-politics policy,” Camley says. “We have Republicans, Democrats, Independents. We’re just a group of Catholic men trying to help the community. We do food drives, we support the Special Olympics.  We’re not ‘extreme.’ We’re your neighbors.”

But they’re not likely Democratic primary voters.

How far has the political landscape shifted since the JFK era? Kennedy, who won the 1960 NH Democratic POTUS primary with 85 percent of the vote, was himself a Fourth Degree member of Bunker Hill [MA] Council No. 62.

The voters who will pick the Democrats’ 2020 nominee, on the other hand,  are secular, they’re pro-choice and they’re pro-gay-marriage.  Being anti-Catholic isn’t necessarily a bug for Sen. Harris. It could be a feature.