Staff Reports
The tale of Kamala Harris and her latest border wall antics is one for the ages—a true political spectacle that could make even the most seasoned circus performer proud. It seems that the vice president’s campaign has suddenly turned a skeptic into an enthusiastic supporter of the border wall, a striking transformation considering her previous denunciations of such projects as “medieval vanity.” As it turns out, desperation makes for strange bedfellows, and Harris is trying to cozy up to the very wall she once rejected.
Republican Senator James Lankford from Oklahoma, one of the architects of a bipartisan border security deal, isn’t buying what Harris is selling. In a humorous turn of events, he questioned whether the $650 million allocated for the border wall actually exists, likening it to a long-lost sock in the dryer—escaping and likely never to be seen again. The senator expertly highlighted the irony of Harris’s maneuvering; her previous resistance to border wall funding has now morphed into a campaign pitch for more steel barriers, a classic case of “I was against it before I was for it.”
75 days to go… #Immigration reality check: Sen. Lankford, is telling the truth about why we don't have a bipartisan border deal enacted. MAGA nominee for prez told his fellow insurrectionist to kill the bill. Because – they hate America. #HarrisWalz2024
pic.twitter.com/Pqwn2ro761— Lee West (@WhoDat35) August 22, 2024
As if watching a poorly scripted political drama, the vice president’s contradictions are playing out in full view. She once vehemently opposed the very structure she’s supposedly embracing now, all while simultaneously blaming Republicans for the failings of past border agreements. This behavior, akin to a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat, leaves many wondering if it’s just sleight of hand or genuine transformation. Given that Harris hadn’t even reached out to Lankford since last fall makes one question whether her newfound enthusiasm for border security is as real as her campaign promises.
The border crisis, which has been a continuing catastrophe, may have pressured Harris to pivot on this issue, but the groundwork of her past statements remains unshaken. For Republican critics, Harris’s alleged flip-flop is nothing more than another instance of a politician who will say anything to get elected. With a history that includes a desire to abolish ICE, it’s clear this pivot is less about genuine policy change and more about political expediency as the election looms.
While Democrats may enjoy the idea of a border wall if it seems politically beneficial at a given moment, Republicans like National Republican Congressional Committee press secretary Will Reinert are quick to expose what they view as pure theatrics. His statements suggest that Harris’s real allegiance lies with House Democrats’ open-border demands, not the average American’s desire for actual security. If this isn’t a classic political case of “I’ll say what I need to say to get elected,” it is hard to imagine what is.
In the grand scheme of things, Lankford’s skepticism, coupled with critiques from conservatives, underscores a significant distrust of Harris’s intentions. As the election season heats up and voters begin to examine candidates more critically, the longstanding question arises: how long will it be before the curtain is pulled back on Harris’s latest disguise as a champion for border security? This entire ordeal feels less like a policy shift and more like a poorly executed magic trick—one that conservatives are taking note of as November approaches.
