Kamala Harris, the Vice President hoping to secure a spot on the Democratic ticket for 2024, is drawing flak for her energy policy that seems more confusing than a dog chasing its own tail. Critics have taken aim at her ever-revolving stance on energy issues, particularly fracking, raising concerns that she might be adapting her views solely for electoral gain. In a world where transparency is crucial, Harris has turned the notion of clarity and directness into a game of hide-and-seek, leaving voters wondering what they might actually get under a Harris-Walz administration.
Supporters like Bernie Sanders have come to her defense, cleverly suggesting that Harris is merely playing the political game, adjusting her energy positions to what she believes will resonate with voters. However, one must ask: if her positions are as flexible as a yoga instructor, who can truly trust her in the oval office? After all, if the radical green activists truly believed in her newfound moderation, they would be peacefully protesting outside every campaign stop.
A banger
The Harris Disguise, Energy Edition https://t.co/huyBEpkijt
— Chris Horner (@Chris_C_Horner) October 24, 2024
In her earlier presidential bid, Harris had no problem vocally supporting a ban on fracking, a process that has revolutionized energy production in America. But fast forward to 2024, and she’s suddenly declaring she’s not against it after all, as if she just discovered a new flavor of ice cream at the local parlor. She has also cozied up to traditional fossil fuels, showcasing record production as a badge of honor, all while still embracing radical eco-groups that would rather see dinosaurs roam than natural gas be extracted responsibly.
Despite Harris’ hopeful claims of supporting fossil fuel production, the affiliations with groups like the Green New Deal Network and endorsements from climate warriors like the Natural Resource Defense Council have raised eyebrows. These groups aren’t known for their love of fossil fuels, making one wonder if her supportive rhetoric is merely a strategic move to dodge backlash while pandering for votes. Actions speak louder than words, and her past suggests a different story—one that may lead back to the dark corners of energy policy where fracking is cast aside as an enemy.
Confusion surrounding her energy views has only intensified, as her campaign’s Climate Engagement Director found herself spinning in circles while attempting to explain that while Harris isn’t against drilling, she cannot publicly support its expansion. To the average voter, this sounds more like a riddle than an energy policy. It’s no wonder that aides are doing the talking—no one’s ready to let Harris go off-script and risk exposing the less palatable truths of her policy ambitions.
As the critical battleground state of Pennsylvania looms large, voters are increasingly aware that Harris has consistently made decisions detrimental to their energy sector. Polls indicate that a whopping 80% of Pennsylvanians acknowledge the importance of natural gas for their economy. They are not looking for a leader who bends like a reed in the wind when it comes to energy policy, especially one who is tangled in contradictions and alliances with the very groups that seek to dismantle their livelihoods. The more Harris attempts to paint herself as a moderate, the more it becomes apparent that her true colors may not align with the constituents she needs to win.