The front page of the New York Times today features this editorial, which was published originally on Sept 30, titled “The Only Patriotic Choice for President.”
Unlike the Washington Post and the LA Times, whose owners caved in to pressure from Trump (isn’t that a clear case of fascism and Putinism?), the NY Times editorial board has been steadfast in its opinion of Harris vs Trump, even though its pages also cater to a coterie of unprincipled right-wing writers.
Here are some snippets from the strongly worded editorial.
The editorial starts with a scathing review of trump and his lack of competence and character:
It is hard to imagine a candidate more unworthy to serve as president of the United States than Donald Trump. He has proved himself morally unfit for an office that asks its occupant to put the good of the nation above self-interest. He has proved himself temperamentally unfit for a role that requires the very qualities — wisdom, honesty, empathy, courage, restraint, humility, discipline — that he most lacks.
Those disqualifying characteristics are compounded by everything else that limits his ability to fulfill the duties of the president: his many criminal charges, his advancing age, his fundamental lack of interest in policy and his increasingly bizarre cast of associates.
This unequivocal, dispiriting truth — Donald Trump is not fit to be president — should be enough for any voter who cares about the health of our country and the stability of our democracy to deny him re-election.
For this reason, regardless of any political disagreements voters might have with her, Kamala Harris is the only patriotic choice for president.
A few kind words about Kamala Harris (most of the article dwells on trump and his unworthiness):
As a dedicated public servant who has demonstrated care, competence, and an unwavering commitment to the Constitution, Ms. Harris stands alone in this race. She may not be the perfect candidate for every voter, especially those who are frustrated and angry about our government’s failures to fix what’s broken — from our immigration system to public schools to housing costs to gun violence. Yet we urge Americans to contrast Ms. Harris’s record with her opponent’s.
Ms. Harris is more than a necessary alternative. There is also an optimistic case for elevating her, one that is rooted in her policies and borne out by her experience as vice president, a senator, and a state attorney general.
Over the past 10 weeks, Ms. Harris has offered a shared future for all citizens, beyond hate and division. She has begun to describe a set of thoughtful plans to help American families.
On project 2025:
His disdain for the rule of law goes beyond his efforts to obtain power; it is also central to how he plans to use it. Mr. Trump and his supporters have described a 2025 agenda that would give him the power to carry out the most extreme of his promises and threats. He vows, for instance, to turn the federal bureaucracy and even the Justice Department into weapons of his will to hurt his political enemies. In at least 10 instances during his presidency, he did exactly that, pressuring federal agencies and prosecutors to punish people he felt had wronged him, with little or no legal basis for prosecution.
On the dangers of a Trump presidency:
Unless American voters stand up to him, Mr. Trump will have the power to do profound and lasting harm to our democracy.
That is not simply an opinion of Mr. Trump’s character by his critics; it is a judgment of his presidency from those who know it best — the very people he appointed to serve in the most important positions of his White House. It is telling that among those who fear a second Trump presidency are people who worked for him and saw him at close range.
A recognition of the mutation of the Republican party:
Most dangerous for American democracy, Mr. Trump has transformed the Republican Party — an institution that once prided itself on principle and honored its obligations to the law and the Constitution — into little more than an instrument of his quest to regain power. The Republicans who support Ms. Harris recognize that this election is about something more fundamental than narrow partisan interest. It is about principles that go beyond party.
The editorial closes with this warning and their endorsement of Kamala Harris:
In 2020 this board made the strongest case it could against the re-election of Mr. Trump. Four years later, many Americans have put his excesses out of their minds. We urge them and those who may look back at that period with nostalgia or feel that their lives are not much better now than they were three years ago to recognize that his first term was a warning and that a second Trump term would be much more damaging and divisive than the first.
Kamala Harris is the only choice.
Yes, there is much to criticize about the NY Times coverage of this election cycle, but this is a welcome and courageous move and we should share it far and wide. We do not need to re-subscribe to NY Times or put them on a pedestal, but at least the editorial board did the right thing in September and are doing a lot today to boost Kamala Harris. We need every ounce of help we can get to win this election, with some extra margin.
--30--
Written by user AKAlib. Cross-posted from Daily Kos.
Comments
