The New York Times editorial board endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris for president, calling her the “only patriotic choice” and calling her rival, former President Donald Trump, “unfit for office.”
The group of opinion journalists who make up the board made the endorsement on Monday with just over 30 days left until the elections in what remains a very close race for the White House.
“As a dedicated public servant who has demonstrated care, competence, and an unwavering commitment to the Constitution, Ms. Harris stands alone in this race,” they wrote.
The New York Times attacked Trump with a blistering critique from the start and praised Harris even though she notably did not sit down for an interview with the editorial board before it made its decision.
Vice President Kamala Harris speaking at a rally in Las Vegas on September 29. The New York Times editorial board endorsed Harris on Monday, calling her the “only patriotic choice.”
“It is difficult to imagine a more unworthy candidate to serve as President of the United States than Donald Trump,” the board wrote.
‘He has proven to be morally incapable of a position that requires its occupant to put the good of the nation before his own interest. “He has proven to be temperamentally inadequate for a role that requires the very qualities (wisdom, honesty, empathy, courage, restraint, humility, discipline) that he lacks most,” he continued.
The editorial board also criticized the Republican presidential candidate for his criminal charges, being 78 years old, as well as his “fundamental lack of interest in politics and his increasingly strange cast of associates.”
She later criticized his “overt fondness for dictatorships and strongmen” and accused him of undermining “public confidence in the outcome of the 2020 election,” which they wrote “culminated” in the 2021 Capitol attack.
They argued that unless voters reject it, ‘“Trump will have the power to cause deep and lasting damage to our democracy.”
Former President Donald Trump spoke at a campaign rally in Erie, Pennsylvania, on September 29. The New York Times editorial board called him “unfit” for any position.
While the NYT editorial board offered a brutal takedown of Trump, He called Harris “a more than necessary alternative” and praised her for beginning to set priorities to help Americans.
They contrasted their plans, which they said would “help Americans pay for things better” with Trump’s priorities, including tax cuts “that would primarily benefit the rich.”
However, the endorsement was not without some criticism of the 59-year-old vice president’s campaign, noting that some voters have said they want “more impromptu meetings” to explain her “vision and policies.”
The editorial board suggested that the campaign might be trying to minimize unforced errors, but criticized the approach.
While the New York Times editorial board endorsed Harris for president, it criticized her limited unscripted appearances and lack of access, warning that it could be “counterproductive.”
“That strategy may ultimately prove winning, but it does a disservice to the American people and their own record,” they wrote.
He warned that “leaving the public feeling like they are being shielded from tough questions, as Mr. Biden has been, could backfire by undermining his central argument that a capable new generation is ready to take the reins of power.” .
Harris campaign chief spokesman Ian Sams appeared on CNN Monday morning after the endorsement, where he was asked to respond to the criticism.
Sams pointed to the vice president’s half-hour live interview last week on MSNBC, as well as another podcast interview Harris did that aired Monday morning.
“So she will continue to speak to the American people in these types of settings and formats,” Sams said.
She also insisted that she will continue to answer questions from journalists during the election campaign, even though access has been limited to a few questions she has answered along the way from the so-called ordinary reporters who travel with her.
In response, the Trump campaign slammed the newspaper, calling the endorsement “about as useful as a moldy old rag that hasn’t been cleaned in years.”
“They had to apologize in 2016 for misleading their readers and completely misinterpreting President Trump’s historic victory, but it seems they still haven’t learned their lesson,” wrote Steven Cheung. “Kamala Harris is supported by fake news because she is fake, fake, and unfit for office.”
The NYT endorsed Joe Biden for president in the 2020 general election, but not in the primary, even though he sat down with the editorial board for an interview before his decision in late 2019.
