Here’s a simple question: Did Vice President Kamala Harris lie about her position on fracking in 2019, or is her campaign lying now?
Every American has a right to know the answers. So far, a sympathetic media, the organization that is supposedly responsible for speaking truth to power, has tolerated her silence.
As everyone knows by now, when she ran for president five years ago, Harris was a staunch opponent of fracking: “There’s no question that I’m in favor of banning fracking.”Harris saidPeople concerned about climate change at a CNN town hall.
A lot has changed since 2019, but it’s not clear if Harris’ position on fracking is one of them.
Fracking is a method of extracting oil and natural gas, and interestingly,Once praisedBy Barack Obama.
Even after the Harris campaign removed a chapter from “Profile in a Coward,” the fracking issue remains. Sensing that Harris’ 2019 stance was causing political headaches, an anonymous staffer waited until a Friday in the late summer to tell a media outlet that Harris didn’t really mean it. No direct quote was given, and no statement was made by Harris herself.
The secretive fracking change of policy raised further questions, and less than 72 hours later, the Harris campaign tried a new tactic: blaming former President Donald Trump for Kamala Harris’ position.
“Harris campaign promises not to ban fracking after Trump’s attack” Shouted out New headline: Trump pointed out Harris’ remarks At least twiceClearly, what was said on camera became an “accusation” or “allegation.”
Now, Harris’ campaign has spoken out directly, saying, “Trump’s false claims about a fracking ban are a clear attempt to distract attention from his plans to enrich oil and gas executives at the expense of the middle class.”
In a world where the media revels in fact-checking, allowing yet another anonymous campaign staffer to pass off a candidate’s clearly stated positions as “false claims,” this is a media environment that favors the newly nominated candidate.
Here’s a bold idea: Instead of allowing the presumptive nominee of each major party to use anonymous staff to change his or her mind on key issues 100 days before the election, why not require Harris herself to explain her positions?
A ban on fracking would affect billions of dollars in revenue, cost thousands of jobs, and raise the cost of everything. And even if you’re a die-hard eco-warrior who’d stick to the highway and pour spaghetti sauce on the Mona Lisa, you’d still like to know where Harris really stands on fracking.
It is a bit odd that many of the major environmental groups have been so silent about their preferred candidate’s support for fracking. As of this writing: Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club And that Sunrise Movement It’s suspiciously quiet. They’re not alone.
Harris has strong supporters in Pennsylvania and New Mexico, the states that have benefited most from fracking, as she seeks reelection to the Senate. Neither Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) nor Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-MN) have questioned whether Harris’s change of heart is genuine, and predictably, the media has not questioned them about it.
Harris’ campaign would have us believe that, 100 days before the election, she simply changed her position on the big issues facing the economy. As Joe Biden’s vice president, she strongly supported every anti-energy order from the White House, and we have a right to know why she changed her mind, or whether she really didn’t.
Was it her views on fracking that changed, or was it the polls and her political imperatives?
Larry Behrens Communications Director at Power The Future.Sabotage: How Joe Biden abandoned American energy independence.”
