The New York Times endorses Kamala for President.

[RandySF]

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.


https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/30/opinion/editorials/kamala-harris-2024.html

[applegrove]

1. Here is the no paywall link:

https://archive.ph/5vkQN

[irisblue]

23. Thx for the link. I am surprised

[applegrove]

24. I got the link from another DUer on an OP I did on the

same topic. I saw there was another Op on the NYTimes Editorial Board so I added it to that thread. I am still clueless to how things render or where to go to get non paywall stuff.

[Native]

27. Here's where you go: https://web.archive.org/

it's a link to the Wayback Machine.

[orleans]

32. applegrove, here is where i go to get non paywall

https://archive.is/

(you can put the link to the article on their page in the box where it says "my url is alive and i want to archive its content" and it makes it readable.)

[maxsolomon]

35. Seriously, why are you surprised?

When was the last time the NYT endorsed a Repuke? EISENHOWER in '56.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_election_endorsements_made_by_The_New_York_Times

[AllyCat]

43. Because they have been normalizing everything he does

Including editorials of support for him for the last four months.

[maxsolomon]

50. You'll have to link me to those, preferably all, since they're plural.

Because I never saw one.

Was it an Op-Ed piece from some RW POS? Maybe that.

Again, they haven't endorsed a Repuke in 68 years. Endorsing Harris should not surprise you.

[AllyCat]

55. Multiple op-eds and I don't subscribe to them because of it. Sounds like you do

so you can search them a lot easier than I can.

Or just continue to point out your opinion that I'm an idiot because I'm "surprised".

[maxsolomon]

56. I didn't say you were an idiot.

nt

[Joinfortmill]

2. Please read people. They don't pull any punches.

Last edited Mon Sep 30, 2024, 08:13 AM - Edit history (1)

[Martin Eden]

3. Oh Boy, that makes up for all the sane-washing!

NOT

[NNadir]

5. If the editors want to know why an unfit criminal is running...

...for President, a review of the crap they published for the last nine years would help.

[infullview]

4. Better late then never?

What a sorry excuse for what was once a real newspaper.

[maxsolomon]

36. They haven't endorsed a Republican for 68 years.

DU loves to hate the NYT because they expect so much.

[Frank D. Lincoln]

6. This is complete bullshit.

Many voters have said they want more details about the vice president’s plans, as well as more unscripted encounters in which she explains her vision and policies. They are right to ask. 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 — answering journalists’ questions and offering greater policy detail could court controversy, after all — 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. And leaving the public with a sense that she is being shielded from tough questions, as Mr. Biden has been, could backfire by undermining her core argument that a capable new generation stands ready to take the reins of power.

Aside from being insulting, it's simply not true. Kamala Harris has gone into great detail about her policies and plans (they also can be found in great depth on her website if so-called journalists can be bothered to read it). Whereas, Trump is the one who's been vague about his, although anyone with half a brain knows his policies can be found in great detail in Project 2025, which he publicly disavows and obtuse journalists let him get away with it.

[llmart]

14. Insulting, indeed. Especially that last sentence.

Trump is so damned demented and stupid he probably couldn't articulate what he had for breakfast this morning.

[Ferrets are Cool]

29. Fucking assholes

[dalton99a]

7. It's a shame Charles Manson is not available

It is hard to imagine a candidate more unworthy to serve as president of the United States than Donald Trump.

[NNadir]

8. The NewYork Times might well normalize him.

[carpetbagger]

22. He's less of a threat.

The Senate would remove him from office if he misbehaved.

[paleotn]

9. Gee, thanks.....

assholes. Feeling sorry for all the hit Pieces?

[markodochartaigh]

10. Well,

at least they didn't say, "How this is bad for Joe Biden".
/s

[spanone]

11. K&R

[splunge63]

12. wow, they're really on it!

[NoMoreRepugs]

13. No matter what Harris might do and say there was ALWAYS going to be the false

equivalency paragraph about some fault or shortcoming.

[Buns_of_Fire]

15. Facing page: "How Our Endorsement Hurts the Kamala Harris Campaign". nt

[Lovie777]

16. Not the Onion?.....................

[50 Shades Of Blue]

18. You can tell that reeeeeeaaaaaaallllllly hurt them.

[angrychair]

19. Decided to delete my first post

After reading past the first couple of paragraphs.

They still managed to get in a couple of completely unnecessary and unqualified digs at VP Harris but managed to squeeze in the bare minimum on her being qualified.
Truly hate the "tell us more about your policies" line. Secretary Clinton drowned them in policies and got criticism for being to much of a "technocratic policy wonk" so it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't thing.

Lastly, if they mean all this stuff they just said I fully expect them to start reporting on TSF honestly and stop sane-washing his statements and events.
I'm not holding my breath.

[Hotler]

20. Harsh words from Morning Joe make them change their tune? I thought NYT attached their lips to the

orange one already?

[maxsolomon]

39. Do you ever read it?

An enraging paragraph by the WH Reporter here and there is not the sum of their Trump reportage. Much of it, MOST of it, is incredibly damning.

[malaise]

21. No wonder he's bawling for

Archangels😃

[Wednesdays]

25. Like a broken clock...

[Clouds Passing]

26. "Kamala Harris is the only choice"

You got that right NYT

[TygrBright]

28. They seem to be going for the "TL/DR" strategy. n/t

[D23MIURG23]

30. NYTimes can fuck themselves. n/t

[Rocknation]

31. They've come a long way from insisting that Biden drop out of the race

Congratulations, New York Times, on finally noticing that there is STILL an aging, cognitively impaired candidate on the ballot.


Rocknation

[SocialDemocrat61]

33. Hardly a ringing endorsement of Harris

It's really just 'the other guy is so bad guess we have to go with the black lady'.

[dalton99a]

34. Don't forget the NYT endorsed Hillary and promptly stabbed her in the back

[maxsolomon]

38. Thanks, I'd almost forgotten

there hasn't been comment about it since Friday.

[maxsolomon]

37. 100% as expected.

The Times is NOT pro-Motherfucker.

Sometimes I wonder if DU's NYT haters ever read it.

[NNadir]

40. I subscribed to "Fox News in Print" for over 40 years. I did read it, which is why I canceled it, probably 20 years...

...too late.

The New York Times is often propaganda presented as "news."

We had that fucking idiot Maureen Dowd whining about the most important thing in her tiny brain in 2000, how Al Gore looked in a suit.

And then there was Judith Miller, the propaganda feed lady for Scooter Libby, leading to the deaths of over 100,000 Iraqis. Were there really "weapons of mass destruction?"

Then, of course, there's "...but her emails..."

Then Joe Biden is too old, but Trump is tall and handsome.

I can fucking read, and did read that shit, even during "Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction" but my main flaw was being too tolerant. I'm very sorry to have spent time on that shit - and to have sent them money - in the 21st century.

I'm not sure that people who claim to read it, but can't understand what it's about, need to do some work on reading comprehension if not critical thinking.

For many years in support of my half serious claim that one cannot get a degree in journalism if one has passed a college level science course with a grade of C or better, the New York Times provided support for that concept.

My wife and I miss the book review, (sometimes) and some parts of the Magazine, and when I remarked on that this weekend, she agreed but said principles matter. (No wonder I'm in love.)

I think if one has no principles one is more susceptible to propaganda than if one does.

Have a swell evening.

[maxsolomon]

41. So, the endorsements are just a head feint.

And they really exist to promote Republicans.

They're so diabolical.

[NNadir]

48. Well, there are some of us, who lack the profound sophistication and wisdom to appreciate the NY Times. As lesser...

...people, we're fond of cliches, including the one that reads "Actions speak louder than words."

Of course, they are word smiths at the NY Times; everybody knows it. The wonderful locutions in the editorial of the "paper of record's" editorial that is alleged to reflect some kind of honesty are lovely.

Of course, not being an intellectual sophisticate who swears up and down that we should all appreciate and read the NY Times, I hold the somewhat suspect idea that dishonesty exists. Why that fellow reported by the Times to be tall and handsome, Donald J. Trump - nothing editorial about that in a news article, just straight up reporting - is sometimes accused of being, is sometimes reported to be, dishonest, not that this should deter anyone from being as focused on him as possible.

Lovely word smithing, lovely, "tall and handsome..."

Less lovely, although I'm sure beautifully written - it was a long time ago, and I don't recall the beautiful rhetoric exactly - was the word smithing of Judith Miller's transcriptions of Scooter Libby's claims to support the idea, that we should bomb the shit out of Iraqi Civilians living in the "cradle of civilization" to help George Bush work through his Oedipal issues with his father.

The day I canceled the NY Times, not being worthy of the estimable wisdom of its reporting, was the day I read the article about how tall and handsome Donald Trump was. I personally thought him rather ugly not just physically, but morally and intellectually, but perhaps I'm being to harsh in thinking him a small man.

As stupid and as unsophisticated as I am, I still do believe dishonesty exists.

Thanks though for pointing out that the NY Times endorsed Kamala Harris. It won't bring any of the victims of the Iraq war back to life. Nor will it restore the lives of the people who died from an incompetent President's response to Covid (which the NY Times in its editorial had the "honesty" to praise) and which certainly was nowhere near as troublesome as Hillary Clinton's use of an unauthorized server. (I'm surprised they didn't praise the "inject bleach" part of that tall and handsome President's response, a helpful idea, no?)

I read a lot; most of my days are, in fact, dominated by reading, and somehow, just somehow, I have learned, in a long life, to recognize tripe when I read it. Even though I'm a dumb guy, I like to think of it as "critical thinking."

But thanks again, though, for sharing your wisdom.

[maxsolomon]

49. tl;dr

If I'm going to be condescended to, I'd like it pithier.

[NNadir]

51. Well, there we have it, a not reader complaining about people who are claimed to not read. It causes one to wonder...

...if the "not reader" has actually read the NY Times. I claim I have, and as so, reject it as propaganda. Maybe some real reading, coupled with reading comprehension would help.

It's hard to understand how one would know that something one did not read involves condescension, but whatever. It's none of my business. I made my point and this is not a high school reading class.

Thanks, though, for not reading anything "too long." (I apologize for my failure to abbreviate; I'm not good at it and had to look up "tl;dr".)

I thought the editorial endorsing, after the fact, Kamala Harris (in a backhanded way) was "too long," perhaps a tortured approach to dealing with the canceled subscriptions which many people here report, but I read it anyway. In the end it was amusing in a sad kind of way, because it illustrates that the editors of the New York Times know (and most likely knew) who and what Trump was but promoted him anyway, maybe for business reasons, to sell papers. If so, it was a poor business decision; people quit the paper.

[ArkansasDemocrat1]

54. I won't even click on a NYT link

Why would I? They'll tease me with a half paragraph and demand $$ to read the rest.

[EarnestPutz]

47. NN - As is often the case, I read your entire post before looking....

...to see the author. And again, I was not surprised to see your name. Well written. Perfect I liked the part about the science course in particular.

[Silent Type]

53. Exactly. If every sentence is not to one's liking, it's a right wing rag, even though 90% of readership is Dem.

[Bev54]

42. They just cannot help themselves, had to disparage Biden and scold Harris for not

taking interviews. She won't accept one from them and they tried to call her out, that wasn't working so is this their way of pandering? I do not trust them.

[mdbl]

44. whooopppeeeeee!

and all the rest of their headlines are kissing Donald Dump's ass.

[Cha]

45. Whoa Dudes! My eyes about Popped OUt!

Go Figure! lol TY

[Hassler]

46. Thanks for nothing assholes

They sanewash the ahole and then think it balances their fascist coverage

[RockRaven]

52. They are an arsonist firefighter who sets the fires and then wants credit for

putting them out, ignoring everything that was already ruined by the fire.