>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
Another major policy shift concerns Harris’ stance on fracking and Medicare-for-All. As a presidential candidate in 2019, Harris was a vocal advocate for banning fracking and strongly supported Medicare-for-All, even co-sponsoring Senator Bernie Sanders’ bill in 2017. However, she has now distanced herself from these positions, leading to further speculation about the consistency of her values. If her values have indeed remained unchanged, as she claims, it begs the question of how these new policy positions align with those she once passionately endorsed.
CNN’s Dana Bash confronted Harris during the interview, pressing her on these apparent flip-flops. Bash asked, “How should voters look at some of the changes that you’ve made, that you’ve explained some of here in your policy? Is it because you have more experience now and you’ve learned more about the information? Is it because you were running for president in a Democratic primary?”
Harris’ response was that her core values remain unchanged. She stated, “I think the most important and most significant aspect of my policy perspective and decisions is my values have not changed.” This response, however, has not quelled the concerns of those who see her policy shifts as politically motivated rather than rooted in genuine ideological evolution.
The Vice President’s comments on the Green New Deal further illustrate this point. Harris attempted to frame her support for the Green New Deal and her role in the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) as consistent with her values. She argued that her belief in the urgency of addressing the climate crisis has remained steadfast. However, critics argue that the green initiatives included in the IRA are far more costly than anticipated, with estimates from the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business and Goldman Sachs suggesting that the initiatives could cost over $1 trillion—almost three times the original forecast.
Harris’ defense of her Medicare-for-All stance also leaves room for doubt. Although she previously championed the cause, her recent distancing from the proposal raises questions about whether she would support it if Congress were to pass such legislation. Given the 2017 estimated price tag of over $32 trillion for Medicare-for-All, some worry that Harris’ fluctuating stance could lead to significant fiscal consequences if she were to revert to her earlier position.
Carry 46 rounds concealed? (comfortably)
Finally, Harris’ interview has reignited criticism of her communication style. She made a puzzling statement about deadlines being “based around time,” which reminded many of her infamous remarks on the “significance of the passage of time” in 2022. These repeated verbal missteps only add to the concerns that Harris may not be fully prepared for the scrutiny and demands of a presidential campaign.
In the end, Harris’ CNN interview has left many voters questioning whether her policy shifts are genuine or merely a strategic attempt to secure electoral victory. If her values have truly remained unchanged, as she insists, then voters may rightly wonder why her policies have taken such a dramatic turn. With the 2024 election rapidly approaching, these questions could prove to be a significant hurdle for the Vice President’s political ambitions.
