Kamala Harris’s Bombed Interview on CNN: A Chaperoned Disaster
In a recent appearance on CNN, Vice President Kamala Harris, accompanied by Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, faced substantial criticism for her performance. The interview, heavily edited, highlighted significant inconsistencies in Harris’s responses, especially concerning her stance on fracking, the border crisis and her overall competence in addressing national issues.
The interview, conducted by CNN’s Dana Bash, aimed to present Harris as a capable leader. However, the result was a jarring display of evasion and lack of clarity. Despite the editing, which seemed designed to protect the Vice President from direct scrutiny, Harris’s responses exposed a disconnect between her previous statements and her current positions.
One of the most glaring lies dealt with Harris’ stance on fracking.
Kamala claims she won’t ban fracking, despite having enthusiastically supported such a ban as recently as 2019.
Dana Bash: I want to get some clarity on where you stand on some key policy issues. Energy is a big one. When you were in Congress, you supported the Green New Deal. In 2019, you said, “There is no question I’m in favor of banning fracking.” Fracking, as you know, is a pretty big issue, particularly in your must-win state of Pennsylvania. Do you still want to ban fracking?
Kamala Harris: No, and I made that clear on the debate stage in 2020, that I would not ban fracking. As Vice President, I did not ban fracking. As President, I will not ban fracking.
Dana Bash: In 2019, I believe, at a town hall, you were asked, “Would you commit to implementing a federal ban on fracking on your first day in office?” and you said, “There’s no question I’m in favor of banning fracking. So yes.” So it changed in that campaign?
Kamala Harris: In 2020, I made very clear where I stand. We are in 2024, and I’ve not changed that position, nor will I going forward. I kept my word, and I will keep my word.
CNN Fact-Checker Daniel Dale: Harris Was Not Accurate on Fracking Comments
Inconsistencies on Border Policy
One of the most glaring issues in the interview was Harris’s inability to coherently explain the differences between her past positions on border security and her current approach. CNN’s Abby Phillip noted this discrepancy, stating, “Harris is not explaining the delta between her past border positions and now” .
This comment underscores a broader concern about Harris’s consistency and reliability on key national security issues.
The Vice President has long been criticized for her handling of the border crisis. Her initial role as the administration’s point person on immigration issues was marred by inaction and a failure to visit the border in a timely manner.
In the interview, Harris attempted to deflect criticism by highlighting supposed successes, yet she offered little in terms of concrete evidence to support her claims. This lack of clarity only fueled further doubts about her capability to handle such a complex issue.
Holy Shlit this is so bad
In the first clip, Kamala just admitted that the Inflation Reduction Act was a backdoor way to get the Green New Deal passed
She totally forgot the cover story they’ve been saying all alongpic.twitter.com/MeijpHA5lX
— Jack Poso (@JackPosobiec) August 29, 2024
Tim Walz: A Protective Chaperone
Governor Tim Walz’s presence during the interview raised eyebrows, as many questioned why the Vice President needed a political chaperone to navigate a routine media appearance. Walz, who has been a staunch ally of the Biden-Harris administration, appeared to act as a buffer, stepping in to redirect the conversation whenever Harris seemed to falter. Critics argue that this tactic further diminishes Harris’s image as a strong and independent leader.
The Daily Caller remarked on this dynamic, stating, “Walz’s role seemed more about shielding Harris from tough questions than providing any substantive insight” . This observation highlights the perceived fragility of Harris’s leadership, as it appears she requires constant support to avoid making significant missteps.
Edited for Damage Control
The most concerning aspect of the interview was the evident editing.
The Gateway Pundit reported that several critical segments were removed or altered to present Harris in a more favorable light. The outlet described the interview as a “trainwreck,” suggesting that the edits were a last-ditch effort to salvage Harris’s public image .
The choice to edit the interview so heavily raises questions about the Vice President’s ability to handle unscripted moments. In a political environment where authenticity is increasingly valued, such overt manipulation can only serve to erode public trust further.
Harris’s Leadership Under Scrutiny
The interview has sparked renewed debate about Harris’s suitability for the Vice Presidency and her potential candidacy in future elections. The lack of transparency and her reliance on political allies to navigate basic media appearances suggest a leader who is not fully confident in her own abilities. This perception is unlikely to bolster her standing among voters who are already skeptical of her performance in office.
Critics argue that Harris’s consistent missteps, combined with the Biden administration’s overall lack of clarity on key issues, reflect a broader problem within the Democratic Party. As the 2024 election approaches, the Vice President’s inability to effectively communicate her positions and respond to criticism will likely become a significant liability for the administration.
In a political climate that demands strong, independent leadership, Kamala Harris’s latest media appearance has only added to the growing list of concerns surrounding her competency. The heavily edited interview, far from providing reassurance, has instead amplified doubts about her ability to lead.
