Beth Ann Rosica: The case against Kamala — Part Two
It is likely that the presidential election will be decided in Pennsylvania, and I am part of the demographic that may tip the scales in either direction. As a white, suburban, middle-class professional and mom residing in Chester County, Pennsylvania, Democrats and Republicans are courting and counting on my vote.
This is a multi-part series that will focus on my insights about Kamala Harris and the policies that she has embraced as Vice President and the policies she will likely bring as President. I will explore topics such as abortion, the economy, Title IX, education, energy, and immigration.
Part Two – Flip-flops are great for the beach, but not presidential policy
The presidential election continues its turbulent course, and much has transpired since we published the kickoff of this series last Monday.
When I finished writing Part One, Harris’s website did not include a single policy statement. Then miraculously on Monday — the same day as my first article published — an issues section appeared on the menu of the site.
Perhaps Kamala’s team produced the page in an attempt to prove my hypothesis wrong, or more likely, they were scrambling to prepare her in advance of the debate to ensure that she was clear on her proposed policies.
Ironically, the new section of the website did not appear to help Harris articulate her policies to the voters. The debate, overall, was a disappointment and painful to watch. I was hoping that one of the candidates would give me a reason to vote for them — sadly, that did not happen. But the debate did further my conviction that there is absolutely no reason to vote for her. Whomever I vote for will be a vote against Harris.
Today’s focus of the case against Harris is her recent statement about her values. In her only interview as a presidential candidate (which was recorded and edited), Harris claimed that her values haven’t shifted but her policies have.
On its face, that isn’t a bad statement — some might consider it refreshing that a politician is capable of changing their position on a particular issue when faced with new evidence. Most voters appreciate honesty and transparency when it comes to changing one’s mind. The majority of parents instill the idea that acknowledging your mistakes and charting a new path forward is a virtue.
So if Harris did any of those things, the statement about her values not changing might be believable. Yet, she has not acknowledged that her past decisions were a mistake, nor has she been honest about the reason for her change of heart, and she has not cited any new evidence that changed her mind.
Following her CNN interview, the media outlet said, “Vice President Kamala Harris on Thursday offered her most expansive explanation to date on why she’s changed some of her positions on fracking and immigration, telling CNN’s Dana Bash her values haven’t shifted but that her time as vice president provided new perspective on some of the country’s most pressing issues.”
CNN’s description is as bad as Kamala’s underwhelming and convoluted explanation.
As a parent, I demand more of my child if they suddenly change their mind on an important topic or decision. As a voter, I absolutely expect truthful and real answers as to why Harris has reversed course so dramatically.
Which leads to the only possible conclusion — Harris has flip-flopped on so many issues because she holds no convictions on policy and her principles are rooted in whatever will get her elected to the next office. As a California politician, whose career was built in San Francisco, pandering to irrational progressivism is the key to winning the Democratic primary. In a national campaign where political and ideological constituencies in swing states determine the outcome, her predilection progressive politicking now has far less utility. But, values….
Harris could just be honest about this. There could be something admirable about a politician who is willing to be democratically responsive to their constituency rather than rabidly ideological. However, this is clearly expecting too much, as she pretends that she was never as “progressive” as she is portrayed.
For example, it is clear from polling that the election will be very close no matter who wins, meaning that roughly 50 percent of American voters won’t agree with her platform or believe she is the better candidate. Why not acknowledge that fact and explain that for the sake of building a governing coalition, she recognizes the importance of moderating her policies? There is no shame in that, and it would demonstrate to voters that she is at least capable of being honest and prudent.
But, alas, she is not.
And if there is one thing that suburban moms value, it is integrity and being the one who makes the tough calls. We drill integrity into our children every day. We rarely make decisions that are without competing consequences.
She could use this opportunity to connect with us by demonstrating a level of authenticity that, since emerging on the national political scene in 2016, she had been reluctant to reveal.
Instead, Harris, consumed with ambition and cynicism, attempts to rewrite history like so many others in her party about their position on issues.
There is a distinct difference between thoughtful reconsideration of issues and policies and flip-flopping to say anything necessary to garner enough votes to win.
Two notable examples of her about-face on issues are immigration and fracking.
Immigration
When Harris was running for president in 2019, her views were clearly pro-illegal immigration. She responded unequivocally to an ACLU candidate survey about her views on immigration and illegal immigrants.
“Our immigrant detention system is out of control, and I believe we must end the unfair incarceration of thousands of individuals, families and children. I was one of the first Senators after President Trump was elected to advocate for a decrease in funding to ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement).”
Harris has now abandoned her progressive positions of decreasing funding to ICE and decriminalizing border crossings. In the interview with CNN, she said, “We have laws that have to be followed and enforced that address and deal with people who cross our border illegally. And there should be consequences.”
This is not a nuanced change in perspective, rather these two positions are diametrically opposed from one another. Harris has flip-flopped a full 180-degrees on the issue of immigration. And once again, instead of acknowledging that she was wrong in 2019 based on her experience as Vice President and the exponential problems caused by the Biden-Harris administration’s policies, she does not articulate the reason for her change in views.
Fracking
In 2019, Harris was indisputable on her position about fracking. CNN posted her comments on X, “there’s no question, I am in favor of banning fracking.”
Every parent I know warns their children that the internet is forever, so don’t say or post anything that you don’t want a potential employer to see. Apparently, Kamala did not learn that lesson.
Harris is now against a ban on fracking. Forbes noted, “Harris didn’t explicitly say why her position on fracking changed, but said in CNN’s interview she now believes ‘we can grow and we can increase a thriving clean energy economy without banning fracking’.”
Curious that her position could change so definitively — unless you need to win a major swing state, like Pennsylvania, that could help the nation become energy independent through the use of fracking. Once again, rather than admitting she was wrong or misguided, Kamala simply tells the voters what they want to hear to get their votes.
It remains to be seen whether voters, particularly suburban women, will buy her BS — but Harris is counting on it. Despite the fact that my demographic should be smart enough to see through her constantly changing policies, the Harris/Walz team is hoping they will blindly believe her and support her because she is a minority woman.
Most everyone I know claims to value honesty and integrity, especially moms. How many parents have said to their children that lying about mistakes is worse than the actual mistake?
Harris has flip-flopped on many issues, but perhaps her biggest lie to the American people is that Joe Biden was capable of running for re-election and is still competent to run the country. Regardless of what you think of her policies, this lie alone should disqualify her for office. If she can lie about the competence of the most influential, powerful person in the world, what else is she willing to lie about?
“My values have not changed. So that is the reality of it.” Maybe Harris is right — maybe she has always been a liar and always will be.
As a mom, as a woman, as a Pennslyvanian, and as a voter — I, for one, do not want a liar or a flip-flopper as my president. And that is why I will vote against Kamala Harris in November.
Beth Ann Rosica resides in West Chester, has a Ph.D. in Education, and has dedicated her career to advocating on behalf of at-risk children and families. She covers education issues for Broad + Liberty. Contact her at barosica@broadandliberty.com.
Well, then why would you vote for Trump if you don’t want a liar or someone without morals or integrity? He is the embodiment of what we teach our children not to be. Ask Nicky Haley. Why would you want your children to think it’s acceptable to mock the handicapped, cheat on their spouse, commit fraud? If your child loses a game do you let them cry on the field in front of all the kids and say “they cheated” and “I won”. Trump brought Laura Loomer to the 9/11 ceremony. Pennsylvania suburban mothers are never going to vote for Trump. He’s everything we teach our children not to be. Why would ANYONE support that man, let alone a mother?
Sarah raises very good points and legitimate questions. I agree that Trump is deeply, deeply flawed. Your vote for President helps select – ultimately – roughly 4,000 people who will comprise the administration of the President. If Harris wins, what do those 4,000 people believe in, and what policies will they enact? Harris has good talking points. Harris’ administration would see expanded war in Ukraine? Price controls that historically lead to disaster? More inflation by giving first-time home buyers $25k? Harris’ 4,000-person administration will be rife with very interesting people that is for sure. If they are aligned with your core values is not for sure. Neither Trump nor Harris is a good choice. Trump’s 4,000 people will probably be better for everyone as long as Covid doesn’t happen again.
There is an article in Ecology titled: “Ukraine opens up for Monsanto, land grabs and GMOs” written in 2014 by Joyce Nelson. He gets into the weeds (pun intended) about late 2013, and the then president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, rejecting a European Union association agreement tied to the $17 billion IMF loan. Yanukovych chose a Russian aid package worth $15 billion plus a discount on Russian natural gas. His decision was a major factor in the ensuing deadly protests that led to his undemocratic ouster from office in February 2014 and the ongoing crisis. You can find the article using DuckDuckGo search engine and read it (it was written in 2014 before today’s censorship and propaganda) and you will understand that your perspective on many topics is carefully curated by a few highly motivated people.