Earlier today, I told you how the Kamala Harris-Tim Walz campaign issued a Friday night statement admitting Walz lied about his service in the armed forces. It said Walz, who has been capitalizing on his military career for years, simply 'misspoke' when he said he carried 'weapons of war' during his service and never bothered to correct press kits or Nancy Pelosi when they mentioned his service.
This is the latest in a troubling pattern from the Kamala campaign: addressing controversial issues and correcting previously held policy positions through impersonal statements or campaign staffers (both named and unnamed).
For example, Kamala's National Security Advisor, Phil Gordon, rolled back her statement on being open to an Israeli arms embargo.
On fracking, which Kamala said she would ban in 2020? An anonymous 'official' with her campaign now says she won't do that.
Banning private health insurance? Nah. She doesn't support that anymore. Per her campaign.
Recommended
The federal jobs guarantee (part of the Green New Deal)? Forget about it, says a spokesperson.
Notice the pattern here?
Not one of these admissions or policy reversals has been addressed by Kamala or Walz themselves. They have not spoken to the press, issued a TikTok, put a post on X about any of these issues. Everything goes through the campaigns.
This is intentional. Why?
The policies Kamala supports -- from banning fracking and private insurance to defunding the police and open borders -- are electoral suicide. She would lose in a landslide if she campaigned on those positions today.
We know it. And the campaign knows it.
So this is the way they shield the campaign from criticism and negative coverage. Yes, the media are wholly in the pockets of the DNC, but there are alternative outlets that have been -- and would continue to -- cover these issues. Twitchy here is one of them. But if these retractions don't go through Kamala and Walz themselves, their hands are clean.
By filtering policy reversals and admissions of lies through campaign staff and spokesperson, not only do Kamala and Walz avoid putting themselves on the record as being flip-floppers and liars during the election cycle.
It also means that -- down the road -- they can easily re-adapt the polices they're presently distancing themselves from.
And should be very, very concerned about that.
Because it's precisely what will happen. Barack Obama ran a very conservative, relatively speaking, campaign in 2008. His radical views were largely hidden during the election. That wins more voters. But after election? The gloves are off.
There is zero reason to trust that Kamala will not push for Australia-style gun confiscation, ban private health insurance, outlaw fracking, and decriminalize illegal immigration. Why? She was very sincere and adamant in previous years and interviews about all of those things.
If the media did their jobs and demanded interviews with her, and then asked these tough questions, maybe we'd be able to gauge which Kamala we should believe. Was she lying then? Or is she lying now?
Before we vote, we deserve to know the answers.
