The New York Times editorial board on Monday endorsed Kamala Harris, calling the Democrat “the only patriotic choice for president” in the race against Republican Donald Trump.
But the paper did not even mention the vice president's name until the fourth paragraph of its written endorsement instead focusing attention on Trump's unworthiness for the presidency, calling him morally and temperamentally “unfit.”
“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.”
It's an “anyone but Trump” approach that The New Yorker took one day prior, with editors at the magazine saying the Republican represents the “ongoing assault on the stability, the nerves, and the nature of the United States.”
In its lengthy endorsement, the Times acknowledged Harris “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.”
“Yet we urge Americans to contrast Ms. Harris's record with her opponent's,” the paper said. “Ms. Harris is more than a necessary alternative.”
{{/usCountry}}“Yet we urge Americans to contrast Ms. Harris's record with her opponent's,” the paper said. “Ms. Harris is more than a necessary alternative.”
{{/usCountry}}The Times editorial board has not thrown its weight behind a Republican for president since 1956, when it backed Dwight Eisenhower.
But the paper emphasized that this election is “about something more foundational” than “competing politics and principles” in a two-party system.
“Unless American voters stand up to him, Mr. Trump will have the power to do profound and lasting harm to our democracy,” the paper wrote.
The Times said voters are right to ask more from Harris when it comes to policy specifics: “Given the stakes of this election, Ms. Harris may think that she is running a campaign designed to minimize the risks of an unforced error... under the belief that being the only viable alternative to Mr. Trump may be enough to bring her to victory.”
“That strategy may ultimately prove winning, but it's a disservice to the American people and to her own record.”
Meanwhile, it called the Republican Party “little more than an instrument” of Trump's “quest to regain power” and claimed a second Trump term “would be much more damaging and divisive than the first.”
“Kamala Harris is the only choice,” the editorial board said.