Nick Pope
Contributor
Vice President Kamala Harris has been tight-lipped about her record on climate change while major green groups continue to support her anyways — a dynamic that political pundits and energy experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation is no accident.
Harris — who called climate change an “existential threat” in 2019 — previously probed major oil corporations as California’s attorney general and co-sponsored the Green New Deal as a senator, but she has mostly avoided climate change and green energy on the campaign trail, framing the issues in terms of economics, jobs and investment when she does bring up the subject. That many major eco-activist groups are still supporting her indicates that Harris is trying to broaden her appeal to more moderate voters in order to win the election and subsequently govern as a climate hardliner once in office, energy experts and political strategists told the DCNF.
“The Democrats have figured out that the apocalyptic vibe isn’t really likely to bring people along for this particular ride,” Mike McKenna, a GOP strategist with extensive energy sector experience, told the DCNF. “So, they have obviously made a command decision to focus only on the carrots and ignore anything that looks like a stick.” (RELATED: Harris Campaign Says Kamala Has Changed, But Will She Bring California’s Climate Agenda To The White House?)
Harris and her running mate, Democratic Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, have campaigned on climate issues in passing, but eco-activist leaders are generally unconcerned about the lack of focus on the issue, according to The New York Times. Walz did not address climate change during his Wednesday night speech at the Democratic National Convention , sticking primarily to his background as a rural American.
Even after the Harris campaign walked back her previous support for a fracking ban, a slew of environmental organizations opposed to fracking endorsed her candidacy. The campaign’s apparent strategy of not focusing much on climate change “suggests that Democrats see talking about the environment as a lose-lose proposition” in this election cycle, The Washington Post reported on Thursday.
“They know what she’s going to do. There’s no upside to talking about climate,” Steve Milloy, a senior legal fellow at the Energy and Environmental Legal Institute, told the DCNF. “Keep in mind, I believe it was in July of 2022, The New York Times ran a poll reporting that only 1% of voters prioritize climate. So it’s a loser issue … And they can’t afford to lose Pennsylvania. So, they don’t want to talk about climate, because when you talk about climate, then you have to talk about fracking, and then they’re going to have to talk about how she wants to stop fracking, regardless of what she says.”
Democratic Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, who has pursued one of the most aggressive state-level climate agendas in the U.S. in his tenure as governor, recently told the NYT that he doesn’t think Harris needs to leverage her climate record on the campaign trail.
“I am not concerned,” Inslee told the NYT. “I am totally confident that when she is in a position to effect positive change, she will.”
Moreover, the political wings of three green groups — the League of Conservation Voters, Climate Power and the Environmental Defense Fund — are spending $55 million on swing state advertisements to boost Harris, but the first three ads released do not actually address climate change. The ads back into the subject of green energy and pitch Harris’ record on the issue as centered on protecting ordinary Americans from greedy corporations and promoting “advanced manufacturing and clean energy” as a means of helping the middle class.
This approach is different than the one Harris used during her first run for the presidency in the 2020 cycle, in which Harris attempted to outflank many of her Democratic opponents from the left by endorsing policies like carbon taxes, changes to dietary guidelines to decrease red meat consumption and a ban on plastic straws to complement a fracking ban.
Eco-activists and climate-focused voters “definitely believe she will go left, left, left on climate and energy,” Scott Jennings, a political strategist and on-air pundit for CNN, told the DCNF. “Of course they do. Her 2020 campaign agenda is what they are banking on. And I assume she will deliver for them if she wins.” (RELATED: ‘Border Czar’ Kamala Harris Once Blamed ‘Lack Of Climate Adaptation’ For Massive Immigration Surge)
President Joe Biden also made climate a key aspect of his successful 2020 campaign, guaranteeing that he would end fossil fuels and calling former President Donald Trump a “climate arsonist” who was failing to protect Americans from the “ravages of climate change,” according to Inside Climate News. Nevertheless, Biden and his top officials still frequently drew the ire of hardline climate activists despite the administration pursuing what it describes as the “most ambitious climate agenda in history.”
Harris cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate to secure the 2022 passage of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), Biden’s signature climate bill. While its price tag has ballooned from initial estimates and some contend that the bill has actually worsened inflation, the IRA unleashed hundreds of billions of dollars of private and public spending on green energy and manufacturing projects.
The Biden-Harris administration touts that investment as evidence that its domestic agenda is working.
“The climate activists in the Democrat Party have finally realized that no one is buying their ‘climate emergency’ claptrap anymore or their claims of 5, 10, or 20 years left to ‘save the planet.’ Instead, they are pedaling a barrage of silly economic claims that somehow pouring hundreds of billions and now trillions of dollars into government centrally planned projects,” Marc Morano, the publisher of Climate Depot, told the DCNF. “This new Democrat climate messaging, where they don’t mention climate, is part of the legacy of the Inflation Reduction Act, where local communities and certain states get unlimited federal funds poured into them via taxpayers to create a ‘green economy.’” (RELATED: Renowned Pollster Says Donald Trump Can End Kamala’s Campaign With One ‘Ten-Word Question’)
Len Foxwell, a Democratic strategist based in Maryland, said that the Harris campaign’s lack of attention to climate change and green energy issues is deliberate given her need to secure the support of a broad coalition if she is to win in November.
“First and foremost, Kamala Harris’ responsibility in this race is to win it. And to do so, she has to present her priorities in a way that resonates with those who are concerned about the economy and frustrated with their own financial situations. Specifically, she has to emphasize the opportunities that exist for better jobs, higher wages and long-term cost savings for the ratepayers,” Foxwell told the DCNF. “This is particularly imperative when discussing renewable energy investment, because the upfront costs tend to be considerable and the financial benefits to the middle class are largely speculative.”
As the Democratic candidate for the presidency, Harris “has to communicate her vision and values in a way that attracts the broadest possible coalition,” though it remains to be seen how she would actually govern if elected given uncertainty about the future balance of power in Congress, according to Foxwell. Harris and her team must take care to not propose policies that would increase the cost of living for middle class Americans, which would be “third rail” politics given how concerned people are about the economy, he added.
The Harris campaign did not respond immediately to a request for comment.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Modern politics involves hiding one’s true intentions because it is known that they do not align with voter preferences.
Justified by thinking that it is for a greater good.
Delusional and dangerous.
As many UK voters are just finding out.
Rachel Reeves, Queen of Thieves.
The spelling has apparently changed over the years:
British English, “reave” is an archaic verb that means to carry off something by force, to deprive, or to strip.
Border reivers were raiders along the English-Scottish border from the late 13th century to the beginning of the 17th century. They included both Scottish and English people, and they raided the entire border country without regard to their victims’ nationality.
Campaigns since the 70s: “We need change! “Trust me!”
Hope and change. Hope and change.
Which is always what voters who fall for this tripe are left with. You are hoping you can keep the change you get left with.
Yes, Labour were no sooner in power than they abolished to Winter Fuel Payment for most pensioners. No mention of that in their manifesto, of course.
The tradition of politicians, is to be bought and used by vested interests. It goes back a long, long way,
This speech backed by his army in 1653 is as accurate a reflection of politicians today, as it was back then.
“It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.
Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess?
Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter’d your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?
Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil’d this sacred place, and turn’d the Lord’s temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress’d, are yourselves gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors.
In the name of God, go!”
Oliver Cromwell April 20th 1653. the dissolution of Parliament, Westminster England.
Absolutely;
If you want to know the future … read history !!
Those that fail to learn the lessons of history, or forget them or ignore them, are doomed to repeat them.
If you want to know the future … read history !!
Yes!. But the “Progressive agenda is to eliminate history, put it down the memory hole as they don’t want us to learn from history as that will expose their lies and socialist agenda.
History may not strictly repeat itself, but it most definitely rhymes!
The only thing changed is the absolute 24/7 control those in power (not the puppets we vote for) have over the people because of new technology. To start with you spyphone.
It’s the greatest short speech ever given in the English language. And it’s all the more remarkable that it was given impromptu – no teleprompters or crib notes.
It also confirmed that even Parliament was not above the law. A version of it was delivered superbly by Richard Harris at the end of the 1970 movie Cromwell.
I don’t know of any of the many countries in the Western World that have adopted economy-wrecking policies to ‘fight climate change’ where such policies were explicitly endorsed by voters, they are always imposed via ‘the back door’ with enthusiastic support from the established media.
As Richard Lindzen mentioned in a recent talk once ‘climate change’ (assumed to be exclusively human-caused) is framed as an ‘existential threat’ the need for those policies to undergo realistic cost-benefit examination is averted.
Those it really matter who we vote for? Those puppets Obey those behind the curtain.
Well, a leftist defines everything it wants to “change” as an existential threat, including conservatives. Which becomes a problem when trying to combat them as the existential threat they are.
I have yet to read where wind energy has decreased the cost of power. Most people don’t understand that when the wind people tell them the landowner will get money, that the school district will get money and the local government will get money, it is out of the peoples pocket. Such as the Inflation Reduction Misnomer.
Currently, unless one is in total agreement with The Green New Deal, voting for any member of the Democratic Party is in effect endorsing it. Manchin and Sinema were the last prominent Democrats to express any doubt in that program, and were in effect forced out by The Party.
Both Manchin and Sinema voted for the “Inflation Reduction Act”. That makes Manchin and Sinema radical leftists, along with the “Independents” in the U.S. Senate that also voted for the act.
If you vote with radical Leftists, that makes you a radical Leftist.
This is an old old trick by Democrats to soft pedal, if not outright lie, about their policy intentions once they get into office. Joe Biden sold himself as a moderate deal maker able to make compromises with the other side in order to benefit the nation – a reputation he developed when serving in the Senate, but was inoperable during his 8 years as Obama’s VP.
Yet once Biden was in office with a Dem majority in the House, and a 50-50 tie in the Senate that VP Harris was able to break, he completely ignored Republican concerns, and got exactly zero votes from Republicans on his “Build Back Better” and lyingly-named “Inflation Reduction Act” (a more correct title would have been “Inflation Acceleration Act”). And the voters didn’t much care for that partisanship and complete dismissal of at least half the nation’s desires, so we threw Nancy Pelosi out of a job in the 2022 elections.
Dems are counting on voters having short memories, or non-memories, and being eager to be fooled yet again.
Anybody who is concerned about policy matters can easily see what Dem policies are and what Pub policies are – the differences are stark. Trump himself is not much of a policy guy – he lives, eats, and breathes personality stuff, not policy … but Republicans at least understand that Trump is not going to unilaterally overrule Republican policies, or consent to Dem policies, with very few exceptions.
Yes, the first thing Biden did to reunite the country was publicly trash Trump them dove into cancelling everything Trump did, good or bad, so as to eliminate Trump from history. That certainly was an effort at unity, throwing out the baby with the bath water, as it were, followed by the bath tub.
“Trump himself is not much of a policy guy – he lives, eats, and breathes personality stuff, not policy”
I would have to disagree with that. Trump is all about policy.
Which one has published their policies? KH is certainly not about policy – she’s about fake joy. (I can’t stop thinking of Ren & Stimpy)
The “joy” is a cover for Kamala’s inappropriate laughing. The Democrats are trying to turn lemons into lemonaide.
Uh… It’s still not climate change, but the anthropogenic contribution to global warming these policies trying to address.
It is important to first name things right and then estimate the effect of each measure under ideal and adverse assumptions (the US policies harming the economy massively, but preventing less that 0.1 degree warming in the next 75 years, potentially a LOT less than that)
Also, im general climate policies cost environmental policies money, it seems that you cannot be both, climate alarmist and environmentalist, at the same time, this is another case of confusing expressions.
Harris and others need to state what they expect to achieve (in numbers with a unit and uncertainty) at what cost with each policy!
Your last line gave me my chuckle for the day.
Harris will continue to hide and the MSM will continue to cover for her.
Me, too. Don’t hold your breath waiting for Kamala to explain herself.
Kamala is doing her best to hide from scutiny right now.
Don’t mention EV mandates either Kamala-
Ford Hits the Brakes on Electric Dreams: Model Scrapped, Billions at Risk (msn.com)
lest auto workers woke up to their jobs going bye byes.
Harris refuses to specify what she is for, other than generic liberal platitudes. This morning I wrote a list of what I think she is against:
You don’t need to know Harris is a socialist?
But you do need to know what she is against.
This is my list, needed because I can’t find a good article to recommend on the subject:
Against reducing federal deficit spending for a permanently lower inflation rate
Against CO2, the staff of life, and affordable electricity from fossil fuels
Against fracking for the natural gas that provides affordable and reliable electricity
Against affordable, convenient automobiles that run on gasoline.
Allowing $950 robberies to be misdemeanors, with no bail, as in San Francisco, where tourism is down 80%, from 2019, due to crime and bums openly using drugs on the streets — almost every street!
Against the second amendment (supports private gun confiscation)
Against border security
Against free speech unless you agree with the government
Against Israel
Against telling you what she is against.
Note to Donald Trump: This election will not be won by taking about other subjects.
Full article:
The Honest Climate Science and Energy Blog: I will list what Kamala Harris is against.
That was a good list, Richard.
Kamala and the Democrats have made a mistake, though. They came out with their economic policy, which is mainly to raise five TRILLION dollars in taxes (seven TRILLION if they let Trump’s tax cuts expire in 2025).
They basically want to raise corporate taxes higher than those in other nations which will result in American companies leaving and transferring their business to the lower-tax nations.
They also want to tax “unrealized capital gains”. Imagine you own a house that you bought for $50,000 ten years ago. Today, your house has increased in value and is worth $100,000. If Kamala and the Democrats have their way, they would send you a taxbill for the increased value of your house even though you have never seen a penny of profit out of the increased value. If you can’t pay the taxbill, then Kamala will come seize your property and take it away from you. Farmers beware!
The same goes for unrealized stock market profits. If your stock goes up, but you don’t sell, and you just hang on to the stock in hopes it will go higher, Kamala will still want to tax you for the increase in the stock’s price. If the stock subsequently goes down in price, Kamala probably won’t send you a refund.
All in all, Kamala economic policy will destroy the economy of the United States. And that’s without even adding in the complication of her attacking the oil, coal and natural gas industries.
Kamala/Democrat policies will destroy the United States.
You forgot to mention national price controls.
Yeah, that’s another dandy. Even many Democrats are panning that idea.
I was around the last time price controls were tried in the United States. It made things worse.
But Democrats are all about control. If they can control something, they will. Even if it is detrimental to the nation.
A true politician. Turns whichever way the most recent public opinion poll blows.
And turns over on her back with married men when her career advancement demands it.
Not sure why women voters think this is a shining attribute for leadership.
Then Jay Inslee is either :
1) A very poor student of recent political history, both in the US and around the world
2) An idiot
3) A liar, or
4) Some combination of the above
A summary of how some recent democratic elections around the world were “won” (/ “not lost”).
US, 2016, Donald Trump : “I am not Hilary Clinton”
UK, 2017, Theresa May : “I am not Jeremy Corbyn”
France, 2017, Emmanuel Macron : “I am not Marine Le Pen …” (“… or Jean-Luc Melenchon”, in round 1)
Australia, 2019, Scott Morrison : “I am not Bill Shorten”
UK, 2019, Boris Johnson : “I am not Jeremy Corbyn”
US, 2020, Joe Biden : “I am not Donald Trump”
France, 2022, Emmanuel Macron : “I am not Marine Le Pen (or Jean-Luc Melenchon)”
Australia, 2022, Anthony Albanese : “I am not Scott Morrison”
UK, 2024, Keir Starmer : “We (Labour) are not the Tories”
[ US, 2024, outcome TBD, Kamala Harris : “I am not Donald Trump” ]
.
In my (possibly overly ???) cynical opinion, the last elections around the world that were more about “I am for …” manifesto items — or “priorities” or “vision” or “values” — than “I am against … / I am not [ insert opponent(s) here ]” were in the 1990s, if not earlier.
“US, 2016, Donald Trump : “I am not Hilary Clinton””
Not that simple. True, most didn’t want Hillary Clinton herself. Period. But they also didn’t want a continuation of Obamas’ policies.
Trump made campaign promises that most wanted to hear and won.
Then, lo and behold, he actually tried to do them!
(Many were stopped by RINOs his first two years.)
He still tried to do them after Dem’s regained Congress.
True. I oversimplified a bit.
My comment was maybe 75% “serious” and 25% “tongue in cheek”.
One of his “promises” in 2016 was to “drain the swamp” … and then he promptly appointed John “Bonkers” Bolton as his National Security Adviser.
History (January 2017 to January 2020) shows that if he manages to get re-elected in November his biggest obstacle will be the “flappers” around him who will … erm … “filter” everything before it gets onto his desk (/ into his ears).
It remains to be seen not just whether he has learned that lesson, but also if it will be possible in 2025 to override the inertia in “The System / The Establishment” to actually get the things he wants to do done.
IM(NS)HO what matters is :
1) Who is the last person to talk to him (just) before he makes a decision, and
2) Who (plural) compiles the “These are your options, Mr. President” list(s)
NB : This would also apply to Kamala Harris if she gets elected … in spades …
Make no mistake about it…I fully understand the fraud of CO2…and have for 30+ years now. That said, if given the choice between one who will push a climate agenda for 4 or 8 years or.a morally and ethically bankrupt, racist sex offender with no use for the Constitution or the Rule of Law? Gimme Kamala and whatever her climate policies turn out to be all day!
“The Supreme Court tried to block me from relieving student debt. But they didn’t stop me.” pretty sure that wasn’t Trump
Gaslighter has entered the chat.
Don’t even know what a gaslighter is. Reading through the comments below, I have yet to read one that refutes my contention that Trump is morally and ethically bankrupt. 34 felony convictions, one for sexual assault, a long history of racism and of screwing the little guy doing the work on his real estate properties, and denigrating members of the armed services who were either killed in action or wounded. How about denying the outcome of an election, despite 60+ court cases (to which he was entitled) saying…NO…to the claims of fraud, followed by an attempt to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power. No one in the comments has tried to make the point that Trump embraces the Constitution or the Rule of Law….because you can’t. All I see are comments employing classic deflection…part and parcel of Trump’s playbook. As someone much more clever than I am said the other day…I would much rather elect someone who is moving from the courthouse to the White House than someone who has moved from the White House to the courthouse. With respect to DT’s history and character, I am sorry, but you cannot defend the indefensible.
embraces the Constitution or the Rule of Law
You mean embracing it like “The Supreme Court tried to block me from relieving student debt. But they didn’t stop me.”? I notice you didn’t address that.
Trump Derangement Syndrome on full display. Actions motivated by hate are the antithesis of logical thought.
Voters who cast votes for people they don’t like because they are afraid of their opponents are wasting their votes.
You get one vote. Vote for the people running with policies that you like. Voting against someone is a losing proposition guaranteed to get you nothing.
“Trump Derangement Syndrome on full display.”
Yes, the Lies the Democrats tell about Trump have their effect on some people.
Trump said yesterday that Kamala lied about him something like 21 times during her Democrat acceptance speech.
Democrats constantly lie and distort the truth about Trump and all Republicans. And when they are caught out on their lies, they just keep on repeating the lie, and this has an effect on weak-minded people who have a hard time sorting out the truth from the fiction.
Democrats count on people like this, and need them to get elected to office.
Exactly what lies did I tell about Trump, Mr. Abbot?
You are wrong about Trump being morally and ethically bankrupt. You are welcome to your opinion, but I don’t see it that way.
You are correct that Trump was convicted of 34 felony counts. At least temporarily. I fully expect all these charges to be thrown out of court eventually. The whole thing was a Democrat setup from the beginning.
The sexual assault is a travesty of justice. There is no evidence Trump sexualy assaulted that woman. You think Trump walked into a New York City department store in broad daylight, without being noticed, and then snuck into a woman’s dressing room, without being noticed, and molested a woman in that room? Does that sound plausible to you? Well, maybe you are the wrong person to ask.
There is no evidence Trump has screwed any of his employees.
There is no evidence that Trump ever denigrated members of the armed services. This lie was promulgated by a disgruntled general who claims Trump said dead American service members were “suckers and fools” while attending a memorial for American troops killed in Europe.
Now do you think Trump is stupid enough to say such a thing in front of military people, even if he thought that in private? Well, maybe you aren’t the right person to answer that question. At any rate, there are about two dozen other people who were on that trip who say Trump never said the “suckers and fools” comment. Who are you going to believe, a disguntled general, who hates Trump, or two dozen other witnesses?
How about denying the outcome of an election? What about it? Trump has a right to think what he does about the election. It does look like it was stolen. That can’t be proven now, but it’s not a crime to think the Democrats pulled a fast one. If it is, then I’m a criminal too, because I think it was stolen, too.
And 60 courts did not say “NO..to the cliams of fraud”. Most of the court cases were not even heard with regard to the particulars of the elections, they were dismissed for various legal technicallities.
The actual case of whether votes were stolen or not was never heard by any court. The courts did their best to run away from this issue.
The U.S. Supreme Court failed the American people when they refused to hear the complaint of Texas and 24 other States, that some Democrat States had changed their voting laws illegally, which jeopardized the presidential election. The U.S.Supreme Court refused to hear this case, even though they are the only entity capable of deciding a lawsuit between States.
Trump did not try to interfere in the transfer of power. He told the crowd to demonstrate peacefully.
Trump twice offered Nancy Pelosi 10,000 National Guard troops to provide security at the Capitol Building, days before Jan 6, and Nancy Pelosi turned the offer down both times. Does that sound like Trump was trying to take over the government? Trump was trying to provide protection. Trump did leave office peacefully.
I say Trump definitely embraces the U.S. Constituion and the Rule of Law. It is the Democrats who trample on the Rule of Law.
You say “you cannot defend the indefensible” but I think I just did defend Trump adequately.
If not for Biden’s Lawfare, you would have nothing on Trump. And the courts will eventually vindicate Trump, imo.
So as far as I’m concerned: Trump is not guilty. He is a victim of radical Democrats who think they can use the power of the federal government to attack their political opponents.
Watching CNN will warp your mind and give you TDS.
Good response Tom, but you left out that Trump was NOT convicted of sexual assault. Not a criminal case.
There is nothing deranged about how I have arrived at my conclusions about DT…nothing.
So you voted for Joe Biden?
Yes, I did. I also voted for Richard Nixon with my first vote. It took time, but I got over that mistake, and Trump voters will get over their mistakes, too.
“morally and ethically bankrupt, racist sex offender with no use for the Constitution or the Rule of Law?”
You are talking about Kamala Harris and Joe Biden… right !.
Doing everything they can to destroy and bypass the US constitution
Allowing a massive invasion from the south.
Harris: Willie Brown…. Biden: smelling little girls’ hair.. . both have morals of an alley cat.
Walz.. totally immoral, tampons for boys, stolen valor… etc etc.!
Obviously you don’t care about the destruction of the USA if Kamala gets elected.
Or are so dumb you don’t realise the consequences.
““morally and ethically bankrupt, racist sex offender with no use for the Constitution or the Rule of Law?”
You are talking about Kamala Harris and Joe Biden… right !.”
He is definitely describing Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. Both are ethically bankrupt and both have no use for the U.S. Constituition, witness their “Lawfare” against Trump. They have no problem weaponizing the federal government to attack their political opponents. Like is done in Dictatorial Banana Republics.
Biden is definitely racist. I dont know if Biden taking showers with his daugher would be a sex offense or not. I guess it depends on the circumsances?
Yeah, he’s definitely describing Joe and Kamala.
Name calling and deflection…DT would be very proud of you.
“he doesn’t think Harris needs to leverage her climate record on the campaign trail”
“needs to leverage”
huh?
“Needs to leverage” implies her other positions are SO strong she doesn’t need to bring it up and/or if she uses it, the hockey stick (and The Green Raw Deal it fostered), will break.
So best to avoid letting the public see any of her actual positions?
Says it all right there.
She was also tight-lipped with Willie Brown, who got her hired into political jobs in the first place. Kamala Harris has never had a job outside of politics.
The lying media says:
1. Biden has this economy the best in years.
2. And Kamala is going to fix it Day #1.
So which is it?
They are both lies.
That’s all we get out of the lying Leftwing Media.
The Media Research Center did a study and found that the Media has given Kamala Harris favorable reporting 84 percent of the time, and has given Trump unfavorable reporting 89 percent of the time.
Is there any doubt that 90 percent of the Media are in the pocket of the Democrats?
You can’t believe a thing these people say. They have a political agenda and will lie to accomplish their goals.
Believe me, I hate the media and don’t believe them even when they stray into the truth.
I’d love to hear a reporter ask her how Willie Brown helped her get into her current position.
A reporter just interviewed Willie Brown.
He is singing Kamala’s praises now.
He thinks Kamala will be the next president.
Very nice article. Do not underestimate Harris and the democrats. They will do and say anything to get elected. They will break the law without a second thought and fully intend to. She and they are liars and cheats what ever they say means nothing, pay no attention to them. Do everything in your power to defeat them, they are truly evil.
Good comment. Good advice.
Good luck, Mr. Abbott…and thank you for the laughs…not so much for the deflection and the name calling…