Kamala Harris’s Smoke Screen Campaign

The Washington Examiner’s Byron York earlier this week posted an excellent column about the strategic reasons why Democrat Kamala Harris has been staying away from the media.

Mr. York’s first point is a point with which we are sure most commentators agree:

…she’s not a very strong candidate, not a good extemporaneous speaker. Why showcase her weakness?

But here’s the more important part of Byron York’s analysis:

…staying away from the traditional venue for communication and scrutiny — that is, interactions with the press — has allowed Harris aides to float the idea that she has changed positions and moved to the center from her failed run for the Democratic nomination in 2019, when she was solidly in the progressive lane of the party. By using aides to float her new positions, she can put out words without putting her own face on them, leaving the impression that she has changed views without actually saying so.

In remarks cited by Byron York Senator Tom Cotton hit this point hard in a recent segment on ABC’s This Week when he told host Jonathan Karl, that in the coming campaign, former President Donald Trump is “going to draw a sharp contrast with Kamala Harris, who has supported things like decriminalizing illegal immigration or giving taxpayer-funded health insurance to illegal aliens or taking away health insurance on the job for 170 million Americans, banning gas cars, confiscating firearms. These are all—”

Karl interrupted, “What do you mean taking away health insurance? What are you talking about?” Cotton responded that Harris “said when she ran for president that she wants to eliminate private health insurance on the job of 170 million Americans.” Karl said, “I mean, that is not her position now.”

“How do you know that’s not her position?” Cotton asked. “How do you know that’s not her position?” Karl answered that Harris has “said she no longer supports ‘Medicare for All.'”

“She has not said that,” Cotton responded. “She has not said that. She has not said that. Maybe anonymous aides on a Friday night have said that.” Indeed, look at this article from Politico last week: “Harris co-sponsored Sen. Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All legislation when she was a California senator and offered a modified plan as the centerpiece of her short-lived 2020 presidential bid. But a campaign official told Politico it is no longer part of Harris’s agenda.”

This is how it works, explained Mr. York: “Harris purportedly backs down, by proxy, from her old position, and the press accept it. When Cotton noted that Harris had not said herself that she no longer supports Medicare for All, Karl responded that Harris is “clearly making an effort to move to the middle.” Karl appeared to credit Harris with moving toward the middle when Harris herself had said nothing to indicate that she was, in fact, moving toward the middle.”

Of course, if you believe that, after their National Convention and the selection of Tim Walz as their candidate for Vice President, Harris and the Democrats are “moving to the middle” for real and don’t plan to – if elected – govern from the Far Left, we have a bubble gum mine to sell you.

Here’s another example of this policy of policy obfuscation. Back in July The Hill's Rachel Frazin reported "Harris does not support fracking ban: Campaign official," now her top campaign spokesman just confirmed that yes indeed Kamala Harris still supports a ban on fracking, which would devastate the economy of Pennsylvania, a must-win state in this year's campaign for President.

And here’s one more example of Harris’s policy of policy obfuscation courtesy of our friends at The Spectator, who reported that a campaign official for Kamala Harris said Tuesday that it is a “lie” that the vice president Kamala Harris supports implementing an electric vehicle mandate, even though she cosponsored legislation doing exactly that in 2019:

Harris’s director of rapid response, Ammar Moussa, wrote in a campaign email ahead of Trump running mate J.D. Vance’s remarks on the economy in Michigan that the Ohio senator would “undoubtedly lie, gaslight, and try to run away from the truth.” One such lie, he cautioned, is that “Vice President Harris wants to force every American to own an electric vehicle.”

“Vice President Harris does not support an electric vehicle mandate,” Moussa claimed, before citing several news stories that argued the Biden administration only incentivized, rather than mandated, electric vehicle production by car manufacturers. The administration spent billions to build just a handful of electric vehicle chargers and introduced tax credits for electric vehicle purchases. In addition, however, the Biden administration pushed through a new tailpipe emissions rule through the Environmental Protection Agency that would force car manufacturers to significantly scale back production of gas-powered cars. “The regulation would essentially require automakers to sell more electric vehicles and hybrids by gradually tightening limits on tailpipe pollution,” the New York Times reported in March.

Even more damningly, Harris also supported an electric vehicle mandate when she serves as the junior senator from California. In April 2019, months after announcing her bid to become the 2020 Democratic presidential nominee, Harris cosponsored the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act of 2019. The bill, which was introduced by Senator Jeff Merkley and Representative Mike Levin, presented “bold plan for transitioning the United States to 100% zero-emission vehicles.”

The original version of the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act of 2019 would require 50 percent of new passenger vehicle sales to be automobiles that use zero emissions — electric or hydrogen-powered cars and trucks. The bill would require all new car sales be zero emission vehicles by 2040, according to text of the bill and a press release from Senator Merkley’s office.

The legislation gave authority to the EPA administrator to issue an “injunction on the manufacture of any passenger vehicles other than zero-emission vehicles by a vehicle manufacturer” by 2040.

Harris supported an even more aggressive version of the legislation that would ban non-zero-emission vehicles by 2035, according to an archived page of her 2020 campaign website obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

Harris and Walz are sitting down for their first joint interview, indeed their first interviews of any kind since gaining their respective nominations, with CNN's Dana Bash tonight. Here are a few questions Ms. Bash could pose to Harris and Walz that might give a little clarity and punch through their policy of policy obfuscation:

1.      You’ve called for getting rid of cash bail and your campaign hasn’t backed away from it. Why do you still support such a radical view?

2.      You claimed during your acceptance speech you support a bipartisan border security bill. Why did you support executive actions like stopping construction of the border wall and halting deportations that intentionally unsecured the border?

3.      You co-sponsored Medicare-for-All and the Green New Deal? Do you still support these multi-trillion-dollar takeovers of the American economy?

4.      You have sent anonymous aides out to claim you've abandoned the radically liberal positions that you've held for decades. Do you think lying to the American people is the best strategy?

We’re pretty sure if Dana Bash were to ask Harris and Walz if they think lying to the American people is their best strategy they would say of course not, and then send a couple of aides around tomorrow to say they didn’t really mean it.

• 2024 Election

• intersectionality

• Democrat contributions

• price gouging

• price controls

• first-time home buyers

• 25th Amendment

• public housing

• ActBlue donations

• Donald Trump campaign

• Kamala Harris campaign

• Kamala Harris senate record