From banning fracking to private health insurance, Kamala Harris is no centrist
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Without earning a single vote in either the 2020 or 2024 presidential primary, Vice President Kamala Harris has been safely installed by the Democratic Party as this cycle's presidential nominee, with the vice president replacing President Joe Biden, who plucked her from the political ignominy of dropping out of the 2020 primary months before the Iowa caucuses. The public can be excused, then, for not knowing much about Harris or her leftism extremism.
Despite past panic over polling that indicated Harris is more unpopular than any other vice president in history, including former Vice President Dick Cheney after he shot a guy in the face, party allies in the press have all stepped in line behind Harris, memory-holing her radical record to rebrand the former California senator as electable. Sites such as Axios accused former President Donald Trump's campaign of lying when it called Harris Biden's "border czar," even though Axios itself had referred to Harris as the nickname in the past, and the ostensibly nonpartisan GovTrack wiped its documentation of Harris's voting record as the chamber's most left-wing senator. The New York Times has outright branded Harris as a "moderate," not in its opinion pieces but in supposedly objective news stories.
Harris, of course, is not a moderate, and if anyone lies otherwise, one only needs to look at Harris's own words and affirmations.
Harris has overtly supported eliminating the private health insurance currently used by 226 million people in the United States, or more than two-thirds of the population, telling a CNN town hall in 2019, "let's eliminate all that," when asked point blank if she would ban private health coverage as president.
Harris may have walked back her previous support for Sen. Bernie Sanders's (I-VT) stand-alone Medicare for All Act, which would have nationalized roughly a fifth of the economy to the tune of at least $32.6 trillion over a decade in 2019 dollars, according to an outdated Congressional Budget Office estimate. But Harris was an original co-sponsor of Sanders's bill in 2017. In 2019, Harris became one of the original Senate co-sponsors for the Green New Deal, which called for effectively nationalizing the entire energy industry (8% of the U.S. economy) and provisions for a federal jobs guarantee and "universal healthcare programs." On top of the GND's ban of "all combustion-based power generation nuclear, biomass energy, large scale hydro, and waste-to-energy technologies," Harris has also independently endorsed a ban on fracking for natural gas.
All in all, Harris has co-sponsored legislation to socialize nearly a third of our economy and add an extra $52 billion to $93 trillion (in 2019 dollars) to the national debt in the next decade.
During her tenure in the White House, annual crossings at the southern border have quadrupled to an average of more than 2 million migrants recorded coming into the country each year, no small shock considering Harris's past promises to decriminalize the act of illegally invading sovereign territory. Her campaign may be insisting that she was only instructed to stem the flow of migrants from the Northern Triangle by addressing the "root causes" of emigration from the region. Yet, even if she was not the "border czar" but rather the "Northern Triangle czar," she failed at that as well. The influx of Northern Triangle migrants into the southern border was five times higher in fiscal 2021 than in 2018. While Border Patrol reported "only" half a million crossings of Northern Triangle migrants in 2023, that's still nearly quadruple the share that came over prior to the pandemic.
On the topics of the economy and crime, the two concerns voters across the board consider the country's most pressing, Republicans have led Democrats in terms of public trust. Only on abortion, which Gallup found only 2% of the public prioritizes, do Democrats win. But between Trump and Harris specifically, Trump is actually the centrist on the matter, while Harris is the radical.
The former president opposes federal abortion restrictions of any kind, promising to let states determine their own restrictions, and Trump has criticized more restrictive state laws, such as Florida's six-week abortion ban, as a "terrible mistake." Meanwhile, top Trump allies in the Senate have proposed federal protections for IVF and deregulation of oral contraceptives. By contrast, Harris supports federally legalizing abortion up until the point of birth and once voted against a bill that would require doctors to provide medical care to a fetus that survived a failed late-term abortion attempt. At Harris's urging, the Biden administration has also attempted to repeal the Hyde Amendment to use taxpayer dollars to fund abortion. When a local activist released footage of Planned Parenthood employees discussing the prices they charge for selling fetal remains, the then-attorney general of California didn't prosecute Planned Parenthood. Harris instead launched a criminal investigation and raid of the activist who exposed the barbarism.
Harris's record of incompetence, from her career-long embrace of rent control to the annual average inflation rate of nearly 6% during her tenure as vice president, speaks for itself. But worse than her bumbling inability to achieve her goals is the sheer fanaticism of those goals in the first place.
The Washington examiner? Seriously?
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA
Media Type: Newspaper
Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY
Analysis / Bias
In review, the Washington Examiner format and content have been compared to The Hill, albeit with a right-leaning tilt. They generally report political news as well as local Washington DC news stories. The Washington Examiner frequently utilizes loaded wording in sensationalized headlines like Trump’s manic Monday amid the Kavanaugh storm. While the headlines may be sensational, the articles’ content is written with less bias and tend to be adequately sourced to credible media outlets.
Editorially, the Washington Examiner is 100% right. It is virtually impossible to find a single editorial that offers balance. Most editorials have anti-left loaded headlines such as this: Obama, the Great Divider when in office, lacks the credibility to lecture America.
Feel free to rebut it then...
Otherwise it's just whining isn't it?....
BTW, thanks..
I just did.
No, you didn't.
When some leftists can't rebut or refute the truth and accuracy of an article or story, they condemn the source. The truth and facts about Harris and her record can't be hidden or covered up.
Now she's back tracking, flip-flopping on fracking, having remembered Pennysylvania is essential.
Harris campaign pledges she won't ban fracking - POLITICO
Kamala Harris reverses anti-fracking stance and no longer supports ban | Fortune
Exactly, it's all out there on the internet... or at least for now. Most of it anyway....
So what did they say that is not true or is your comment just a whine in general?
The reinvention of Kamala Harris continues. Her entire campaign essentially now revolves around denying everything she said or did before Biden stepped down.
She couldn’t get to her state in the 2020 primary.
Enough said.
Her next trick will be to claim she and Biden didn't relax sanctions on Venezuela in return for a "free election" as Maduro shoots protesters madhe stole another election.
This is all she can say:
Seems to endorse Maduro's fraud rather than protesting it.
Except for spelling her name correctly everything else in that propaganda piece was a lie. Why Perrie allows seeds from this source is a mystery.
Ahhh, another whiny post.
See 1.1.1
Rebut everything you think is a lie with credible sources.
What specifically is incorrect? While you are at it tell me what is incorrect with her senator report card?