Staff Reports
In a stunning display of political acrobatics, Vice President Kamala Harris has officially thrown her past commitments into the wind, endorsing the elimination of the filibuster when it comes to federal legislation protecting abortion rights. This about-face leaves many wondering whether she has a personal collection of flip-flops to match her shifting stances on key issues—or if she’s simply following the latest trend in the Democratic Party’s fashion show.
During a recent interview with Wisconsin Public Radio, Harris was nothing short of assertive in her advocacy for abolishing the Senate rule that allows extended debate on legislation. Apparently, now that it suits her agenda, the filibuster is an inconvenience that must be swept aside to restore Roe v. Wade. This change of heart marks a significant departure from her earlier position, demonstrating that the only constant in her political career is inconsistency. It seems the Vice President has realized that the most effective way to protect “reproductive freedom” is by trampling over the very safeguards that ensure bipartisan discussion.
🚨Kamala wants to abolish the filibuster, but here's the letter she signed as Senator pledging to support the filibuster to ensure the Senate "continues to serve as the world's greatest deliberative body."
Her word is meaningless.
She'll say anything to get elected. pic.twitter.com/XzDY4ZfJ8S
— Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) September 24, 2024
To add a little spice to this political stew, it should be noted that just a few years back, Harris proudly signed a letter advocating for the filibuster. That’s right—back in 2017, she vowed to support the very rules she now dismisses as archaic and unnecessary. This makes one wonder if she simply forgot that she even signed it or if she has chosen to pretend that the past doesn’t exist. Perhaps she’s caught in a political time warp where past convictions are as relevant as a brick in a swimming pool.
Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas doesn’t mince words when it comes to Harris’ latest comments. He argues that her recent proclamations are clear evidence of her complete disregard for integrity, asserting that her word has become little more than a footnote in her political biography. After all, when one flip-flops as frequently as Harris does, it’s no surprise that critics label her assertions as mere pandering to whatever voter demographic she’s hoping to capture at that moment.
Harris’ waffling doesn’t end with the filibuster. She has zigged and zagged on numerous issues, including her previous support for fracking, her approach to the border crisis, and her stance on the Second Amendment. Each pivot is less about principle and more about pandering to the whims of the far-left base. For Harris, consistency appears to be optional, leaving the American public to wonder what she stands for—if anything at all. It might be time for her to consult a spin doctor or perhaps a new political strategy because when it comes to maintaining a steady course, she’s about as reliable as a weather vane in a hurricane.
