To summarize the previous post on the same general topic: how can any Americans maintain any self-respect who tolerate such obvious lack of integrity from a Presidential candidate?
Harris’s brazen flip-flopping on fracking, or “FFF” as Ethics Alarms will henceforward call it, is so dishonest, so brazen, such pure pandering of the most revolting kind that it defies analogy. Harris on this topic makes John Kerry’s “I was against the Iraq War before I was for it” dodge look like the epitome of statesmanship.
Her cynical machinations on her position on fracking are so convoluted now I’m not sure I can describe it. Let’s see:
1. While running for the Democratic nomination for President in 2019, then-Senator Kamala Harris said there was “no question” that she was in favor of banning fracking.
2. When she purloined the nomination for President in 2024 after winning exactly no votes from citizens who wanted her in that position, she suddenly changed her FFF policies as part of what Bernie Sanders has explained as justifiable tactics (lying) to defeat the Hitler/Bond super-villain/convicted felon Donald Trump—you know, to save democracy. Then, in her debate with Trump, she was asked why she had claimed a month earlier she would not ban fracking. She pointed to the fact that the Inflation Reduction Act (that had nothing to do with reducing inflation) Harris pushed into law with her tie-breaking vote “opened new leases for fracking.” She then said her “values have not changed.” Harris’s values haven’t changed, it’s true: she believes in saying what ever is most likely to advance her career at any moment in time.
3. Then, this week, a Politico interview with Harris’ Climate Engagement Director Camila Thorndike (That title! Yecchhh…) reassured younger voters (those who are passionate about climate change without knowing anything about the science, models or the complexity of the issue)that Harris was committed to policies that protect the environment despite “promoting fossil fuels these last few months.” Engaging Thorndike said Harris wouldn’t ban fracking but wouldn’t support new fracking either. The Inflation Reduction Act that Harris championed requires new leases. See?
4. The oil and gas industry’s quite reasonable summary of this gaslighting on “X”: “So Harris’s new position in Oct is she now opposes fracking and no longer supports her position in July when she changed her position to support fracking which was subsequently a change in her prior, prior position of June which was to oppose fracking?”
Exactly. What’s so hard to understand?
5. Then Thorndike tried another double-backflip on Kamala’s behalf, writing, “I didn’t explain myself clearly here. Contrary to Trump’s claims, the VP has not banned fracking, doesn’t support banning fracking, and in fact cast the tie-breaking vote on the biggest pro-climate law ever, which, yes, opened new fracking leases. People know that’s her position.”
Right. Uh, what is her position?
During this entire campaign, Harris has been making fools out of her supporters, at least those who weren’t fools to begin with. In contrast, Donald Trump, whatever his flaws and there are many, has let voters know what his position on fracking is, and they can like it or lump it.
At least they will know what they are voting for or against. That’s how it is supposed to be, or so Misters Jefferson, Madison, Mason and the rest intended.
Ethics Alarms 
Here is a write-up about Camila:
https://thestoryexchange.org/harris-campaign-appoints-new-climate-engagement-director/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR1uyQleEz8ImH1qwSYzZkN0VVXJsr8meZgBK1lsqsuK3BwZ7Xu1fnmn0io_aem_oWJ0bnC2_vAoldOeYVLsjg
She worked for Sanders as a legislative aid, drafting environmental policy/legislation. She seems to be a committed climate change disaster person.
Query: Why does the Harris-Walz campaign have a climate engagement director? What is her background? Is she a climate scientist? Does she have a scientific background? Does she get paid? If so, how much? Who authorized it? Is this a legitimate campaign expense? Does her salary/commission/compensation come out of campaign resources? What does she do as director? Does her work go beyond the campaign? Is it presumed that she will take on the position after a supposed Harris-Walz victory?
jvb
I think that this may be very much like Trump’s position on early voting.
Trump will encourage his supporters to vote early, then sometimes in the same speech will warn them against the dangers of early voting and the risks. I think Trump has convinced himself that early voting is wrong, but his campaign advisors have also convinced him that the GOP needs to embrace it in order to have the best shot at winning.
I think it’s clear that Harris opposes fracking, but her campaign advisors have convinced her that she has to say she’s not going to ban it and helped pass a bill requiring it. In 2020, I think we all knew Biden would do all he could to get rid of fracking, no matter what he said during the campaign. Anyone who was surprised — well, you need to get out more.
In both instances, I think the audience is GOP/independent/undecided voters. I also think that the net effect is positive for Trump.
One other thought that pops up. Back when she was first installed as the nominee, I read stories that her campaign thought she should be focusing on the sun belt and not the rust belt, kind of playing to a friendlier audience. Some of this is almost like she’s given up on Pennsylvania. I would encourage that, of course, because it’s hard to envision either won winning without Pennsylvania.
Maybe she’s thinking along the lines of Nevada/Arizona/Georgia/North Carolina instead of the Rust Belt. The math might work, but it seems a bit delusional.
I don’t think that’s a good analogy.
If the law gives me adeduaction for X, and I think it’s bad policy, that doesn’t obligate me not to accept a legal benefit. Similarly, if early voting and mail in voting helps get Trump’s vote out, there is nothing hypocritical about saying, “I oppose these measures, but as long as that’s the system, it’s stupid not to use it. Both are genuine positions, and not in conflict. Being pro- and anti-fracking, in contrast, is a zero sum game.
Well, this new ‘White Guys for Harris” ad will surely turn things around. OK, THIS ONE is parody….I think. It must be parody…right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaDWgEyh9ZQ
There’s no mystery whatsoever to Dems supporting flip flopping. They’re fine with it if it will result in their retaining power. This dates back to James Carville’s ascension on behalf of the Clintons.
Allow me to paraphrase a former speaker of the house:
“We have to elect Harris so that you can find out what she stands for!”