rich lowry
Kamala Harris isn’t the best at answering questions, but she’s probably the worst at talking about border issues.
This isn’t because she can’t string sentences together (though she can, although the results are always mixed). Or not because she doesn’t know what she’s talking about (she’s very intentional about sticking to her talking points). No, she cannot answer for the government’s failures at the border. Because there is simply no good answer.
What would she say? Yes, we totally messed this up, and unfortunately, we did it on purpose. However, I have learned my lesson and would like to reverse my position on this issue going forward.
Answers like that aren’t sincere, but since when did that become an obstacle?
She and her team clearly believe that a confession is not in her best interests, so her only options are to deceive, obfuscate, and evade, which will keep her until November 5th. I hope it’s enough to get you through.
She tries to act like she always wanted to be a border hawk if she had her way.
“The first bill we introduced to Congress was to fix our broken immigration system,” she said on “60 Minutes” about a week ago. It wasn’t brought up. ”
All of these words are misleading, except for the preposition. The proposal was a huge amnesty bill. This is only meant to “fix” the system if you believe the real problem is that illegal immigrants in the United States are not yet legalized. The bill had no meaningful border provisions and did not include an increase in Border Patrol agents.
By complaining that the bill was not debated, Harris clearly wanted to give the impression that Republican obstruction was preventing the bill from being debated. However, the Democratic Party had unified control of Congress at the time and chose to ignore the proposal because everyone understood that it was not an absurd start.
“Literally from day one, we’ve been offering solutions,” Harris claims, when in reality there was no border crisis to be solved on day one — because the Biden administration is still implementing Trump policies. That’s because it wasn’t clear. .
After nearly three years of ignoring and making excuses for an unprecedented crisis, the White House finally decided it needed to do something as political cover and reached a bipartisan Senate agreement that is considered hawkish on border issues. I took the helm.
After this opportunistic development, Harris pretends that she is putting politics aside in favor of the public good, and ironically blames Trump for opposing the bill (unless the proposal is acceptable). (Never mind that I celebrated an important aspect of the current situation).
Harris told Fox News’ Bret Baier that the election “will determine whether we have a president of the United States who is actually more interested in solving problems, even if it’s not in their political interest to get elected.” Ta. This is surprising given that she and Biden wanted to blow up the border for ideological reasons at the beginning of their administration and now want to brand themselves as newly pro-enforcement forces for political reasons. It is the right thing to do.
Harris dismisses recent extremism on this issue as if it happened in her teens. “I don’t believe in decriminalizing border crossing,” she told Baier, denying a position she took years ago, adding, “I didn’t do that as vice president, and I don’t believe in decriminalizing border crossing. I don’t want to do that even if it happens.”
She offered no explanation for her change in thinking. Perhaps it was because they had no choice but to recognize that what once seemed like a passion had become a political responsibility.
The reason Harris is so diminutive and unconvincing at the border is not primarily due to poor communication skills. Rather, it is a strategic choice for the administration to try to muddy the waters without acknowledging how and why it caused an entirely avoidable fiasco.
Rich Lowry is a syndicated columnist.
Copy story link
Source link
