New York Times Endorses Kamala Harris as 'The Only Patriotic Choice' for President

In a significant move, the New York Times editorial board has endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris for the presidency, labeling her as 'the only patriotic choice' in the upcoming election. The endorsement comes as the board vehemently criticizes Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, for being 'morally and temperamentally unfit' to hold the office.

Criticism of Donald Trump

The editorial board's endorsement focuses heavily on the unsuitability of Donald Trump for the presidency. It emphasizes that Trump's behavior and actions are a threat to the health of the country and the stability of its democracy. The board stated, '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.'

The Times also highlighted that Trump's presidency has been marked by chaos, praising adversaries, undermining allies, politicizing the military, and belittling veterans. His actions, including inciting the mob attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021, have been seen as a breach of his oath of office and a threat to the nation.

Support from Former Republican Officials

The endorsement is not isolated, as over 100 former national security officials and Republican members of Congress have also expressed their support for Kamala Harris. In an open letter, these officials declared that although they may disagree with Harris on various subjects, Trump's behavior exhibits 'dangerous traits' that make him 'unfit to serve again as president.'

These officials criticized Trump's affinity for authoritarian leaders, his disregard for ethical and lawful conduct, and his prioritization of personal interests over national interests. They echoed the sentiment that Trump's actions have betrayed American values and democratic principles.

Harris as a Necessary Alternative

While acknowledging that Harris 'may not be the perfect candidate for every voter,' the editorial board urged Americans to contrast her record with Trump's. The Times emphasized that Harris is 'more than a necessary alternative' and that her campaign, though cautious, is a better choice for the country's future.

The board concluded that the election is 'about something more foundational' than competing politics and principles, warning that a second Trump term 'would be much more damaging and divisive than the first.'