The Blubber

On Monday, The New York Times editorial board endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris for president, calling her "the only patriotic choice" while painting a dire picture of a potential second term for former President Donald Trump.

Instead of beginning with praise for Harris, the board opened its endorsement by highlighting why Trump should be disqualified. "It is hard to imagine a candidate more unworthy to serve as president of the United States," the editorial stated.

"This stark and undeniable truth — that Donald Trump is unfit for the presidency — should be enough for any voter who values the well-being of our nation and the stability of our democracy to reject his re-election," wrote the board, comprised of 14 opinion journalists. "For this reason, despite any political differences voters might have with her, Kamala Harris is the only patriotic option for president."

The endorsement of Harris isn't unexpected—The New York Times hasn’t backed a Republican since Dwight Eisenhower in 1956—but it holds weight given the paper's influence. In July, just 10 days before President Joe Biden withdrew from the race (following the board's call for him to do so), they published a scathing five-part editorial condemning Trump, echoing many of the points made in Monday’s piece.

The endorsement contrasts Harris with Trump, describing her as a "dedicated public servant" who represents "more than just a necessary alternative." The board emphasized Harris' plans on the economy, healthcare, foreign policy, and immigration as key reasons to elect her over Trump.

While they acknowledged that some of Harris' proposals might lack the detail voters want, the board warned of the "clear dangers" posed by another Trump presidency—specifically, his refusal to accept the results of the previous election and his promises to use government power to target political adversaries. "If American voters don't stand up to him, Mr. Trump could cause profound and lasting harm to our democracy," they wrote.

Reflecting on Trump's first term, the board conceded that there were occasional positive outcomes. However, they argued, "Even when his objectives had merit, his lack of competence, erratic behavior, and reckless decisions often led to negative results."

In conclusion, the board wrote, "Kamala Harris is the only choice."