Kamala Harris’s Debate Strategy: Flip Flops, Non-Answers

At the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, PA, former President Donald J. Trump faced off against Vice President Kamala Harris in the first Presidential debate following the aborted candidacy of President Joe Biden.

Many pundits began the evening anticipating that Harris would continue to backtrack and flip flop on key issues to appeal to a wider swath of undecided voters, and for a brief moment this appeared certain. At least three of the potential dozens of questions that would cause her to run against herself were asked. But she was never held to them.

“Vice President Harris, in your last run for president you said you wanted to ban fracking.

Now you don't. You wanted mandatory government buyback programs for assault weapons. Now your campaign says you don't. You supported decriminalizing border crossings. Now you're taking a harder line. I know you say that your values have not changed. So then why have so many of your policy positions changed?”

Harris, despite promising moderator David Muir to “discuss every one -- at least every point” he made never touched on mandatory government buyback programs for “assault weapons,” or the decriminalization of border crossings two of the three most glaring flip-flops the California Democrat has made.

FRACKING

Rather, the Vice President honed in on the Pennsylvania-centric topic of fracking, a strategic move that she couldn’t avoid in the must-win Keystone State, she began by repeating her well-trodden line: “So my values have not changed,” before writing a rhetorical check she would blatantly bounce, And I'm going to discuss every one -- at least every point that you've made.”

She then pivoted straight to the red-meat for Pennsylvanian oil workers:

“But in particular, let's talk about fracking because we're here in Pennsylvania. I made that very clear in 2020. I will not ban fracking. I have not banned fracking as Vice President of the United States. And, in fact, I was the tie-breaking vote on the Inflation Reduction Act, which opened new leases for fracking. My position is that we have got to invest in diverse sources of energy so we reduce our reliance on foreign oil. We have had the largest increase in domestic oil production in history because of an approach that recognizes that we cannot over rely on foreign oil.”

However, in 2020 as reported by Quartz, Harris sued the Obama administration in 2016 as California Attorney General for federal plans to allow fracking off the California coast. In a 2019 CNN Presidential town hall, before she withdrew her first bid for the presidency, she answered a question stating “There’s no question I’m in favor of banning fracking."

She even expanded on the point adding that “The residual impact of fracking is enormous in terms of impact on the health and safety of communities.” But in shale-oil rich Pennsylvania, the calculus seems to have changed.

Muir never brought Harris back to the two remaining unaddressed points, and the silence was extremely loud.

THE BORDER

In discussions over the border, Harris touted the allegedly bipartisan border security bill that was filibustered by Senate Republicans before being soundly defeated in the House. A bill that Tennessee Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn prophetically called, “an election-year political stunt designed to give our Democratic colleagues the appearance of doing something about this problem without doing anything.”

In a post to X, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) had declared the bill dead on arrival saying, “I’ve seen enough. This bill is even worse than we expected, and won’t come close to ending the border catastrophe the President has created. As the lead Democrat negotiator proclaimed: Under this legislation, ‘the border never closes.’ If this bill reaches the House, it will be dead on arrival.”

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise noted in a supporting statement via X, “Let me be clear: The Senate Border Bill will NOT receive a vote in the House. Here’s what the people pushing this “deal” aren’t telling you: It accepts 5,000 illegal immigrants a day and gives automatic work permits to asylum recipients—a magnet for more illegal immigration.”

This was the centerpiece of Harris’ efforts to defend herself and deflect the question of Border Security. She claimed, “Donald Trump got on the phone, called up some folks in Congress, and said kill the bill,” but Scalise and Johnson’s statements clearly say otherwise. This was a bill that Trump didn’t have to kill. It was only ever ‘bipartisan’ in a strictly academic sense, only gaining support from Republicans opposed to the MAGA agenda. It never had chance.

‘ASSUALT WEAPON’ BUYBACK

Simply put, Harris sidestepped the matter of her vocal 2020 support of a “mandatory gun buyback” during an MSNBC interview.

Instead of an answer on this heavily contentious topic, viewers were treated to two oblique references to Harris’ prosecutorial career in California. Answering a separate question on the border she told Muir, “I'm the only person on this stage who has prosecuted transnational criminal organizations for the trafficking of guns, drugs, and human beings.” And she claimed, again on the topic of border security that the so-called “border security bill”: “would have put more resources to allow us to prosecute transnational criminal organizations for trafficking in guns, drugs and human beings.” These were the only two points where she even came close to an answer on firearm policy, and rather than addressing her stance on a “mandatory gun buyback,” she addressed trafficking, perhaps hearkening to President Trump’s offer to send her a “MAGA hat.”

TRUMP ANSWERED FOR HER

However, following her failure to address one clear flip flop and two non-answers Trump pounced, even wielding Harris’ anticipated “I'm talking now,” when she attempted to interrupt him.

“In Minnesota, she went out -- wait a minute. I'm talking now. If you don't mind. Please. Does that sound familiar?” He began.

“She went out -- she went out in Minnesota and wanted to let criminals that killed people, that burned down Minneapolis, she went out and raised money to get them out of jail. She did things that nobody would ever think of.

Now she wants to do transgender operations on illegal aliens that are in prison. This is a radical left liberal that would do this.

She wants to confiscate your guns and she will never allow fracking in Pennsylvania.

If she won the election, fracking in Pennsylvania will end on day one. Just to finish one thing, so important in my opinion, so, I got the oil business going like nobody has ever done before. They took, when they took over, they got rid of it, started getting rid of it, and the prices were going up the roof.“

Even if she flip-flopped on the border and on firearm policy as expected, Harris would have likely been better served by answering for herself. Instead, the American people heard her refuse to address these crucial policy questions and heard President Trump answer for her.

Matthew Holloway is a contributor for Conservative HQ. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@theconservativefreelancer.com.

• 2024 Election

• Liz Cheney endorsement Kamala Harris

• Dick Cheney

• surveillance state

• 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

• Tim Walz National Guard

• Megyn Kelly Interview

• Stolen Valor

• vice president vetting