In 2020, Kamala Harris's presidential campaign couldn't even make it to the Iowa caucuses, thanks in part to her extreme positions on issues like fracking, Medicare for all, and gun control. Four years ago, Harris not only called for a ban on so-called assault weapons, but said she'd impose a mandatory "buyback" of the tens of millions of AR-15s and other semi-automatic rifles that are already in the hands of legal gun owners. 

Now, however, the Harris campaign says the candidate has shifted her positions on many of these issues, including her gun ban plan. 

The Harris campaign announced on Friday that the vice president no longer wanted to ban fracking, a significant shift from where she stood four years ago but one that is consistent with the policies of President Biden’s administration. 

The Harris campaign will rebut most of Republicans’ attacks by arguing that they are exaggerating or lying about her record, said a campaign official briefed on the plans who was not authorized to discuss them publicly. Her campaign plans to lean into her record as a local prosecutor and state attorney general to burnish her image as a candidate with deep ties to law enforcement.

In addition to changing her position on fracking, campaign officials said she now backed the Biden administration’s budget requests for increased funding for border enforcement; no longer supported a single-payer health insurance program; and echoed Mr. Biden’s call for banning assault weapons but not a requirement to sell them to the federal government.

Those are some pretty substantial changes, and on a wide variety of issues, which would lead most folks to view Harris' supposed change of heart with a healthy dose of skepticism. Not the New York Times, however. They're happy to parrot the talking points of the Harris campaign without bothering to ask the most important question: why did Harris supposedly change her mind? 

I suspect we all know the reason: she's willing to say whatever she needs to in order to get elected, and that means moderating her far-left views in an attempt not to alienate too many independent voters. 

Still, I'd like to hear Harris herself explain her "evolution" on these issues, particularly her changing position on an "assault weapon" ban. Four years ago Harris said that these commonly-owned firearms have "no place on the streets of a civil society." This wasn't a one-off comment made off-the-cuff, either. She repeatedly expressed her position in televised appearances, including on the Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon, where she threatened to impose her ban via executive order if Congress failed to give in to her demands. 

“Great question I do believe that we need to do buy backs, and I’ll tell you why. First of all, let’s be clear about what assault weapons are they have been designed to kill a lot of human beings quickly. They are weapons of war with no place on the streets of a civil society,” Harris said. 

Harris went further, saying that if she could not get the legislation through Congress to ban the further sale of assault weapons, she is “prepared to take executive action” to do so.

... “And so, I’m telling you, when elected, if Congress fails to act, I’ll give them 100 days to put a bill on my desk for signature. And if they do not it, I will put it in place by executive action a comprehensive background check requirement and a ban on the assault weapons and importation of assault weapons into our country. I’m done.”

The thrust of the New York Times piece is that Republicans are "weaponizing" Harris's past positions by bringing them to the attention of voters. They take the claims of her campaign officials at face value, without the slightest bit of pushback, which essentially makes the paper just another Harris surrogate. 

I don't believe for a moment that Harris has moderated her views on a gun ban, but I'd love to see one of the reporters covering her campaign ask her just a few simple questions about her newfound opposition to a "buyback". 

• When did you change your mind about a "buyback" of semi-automatic firearms? 
• What led you to change your position on a "buyback'? 
• Do you still believe that the president has the authority to impose a gun ban without a vote of Congress? 

I doubt we'd get a straight answer, but those are all legitimate questions for a candidate who's reversed course on one of her campaign pledges from four years ago. 

Will the New York Times or any other press outlet drill down on her alleged shift? Not likely. The legacy media has been happy to play along as Harris tries to reinvent herself, and they're not about to jeopardize that by asking tough but fair questions about her ever "evolving" anti-2A policies.