Staff Reports
The New York Times once again finds itself tangled in the web of its own absurdity, serving as an unofficial public relations firm for the Biden-Harris administration. It recently issued a defense of Kamala Harris’s claim of working at McDonald’s back in the summer of 1983, a story that’s as sketchy as a McFlurry machine on a hot day. The Times presented the testimony of a supposed “friend” of Harris’s named Wanda Kagan, conveniently leaving out Kagan’s deep entanglement with the Harris campaign. It’s an odd choice for a witness, given that Kagan has been more of a campaign surrogate than an impartial friend.
The Times, in its fevered quest to paint Kamala as a relatable working-class hero, suggests Kagan is simply someone from Harris’s past who just happened to come forward to confirm her nostalgia for flipping burgers. One can’t help but chuckle at this obvious setup. Kagan, who once went to high school with Harris in Montreal, has not just reappeared after decades; she’s been front and center at campaign events, all while lending her voice to defend Harris on television. It seems the only mystery left is why the Times felt the need to act like they discovered a time capsule instead of acknowledging that Kagan was playing her part in a PR charade.
Nolte: NYT Hides Fact Kamala’s Sole McDonald’s Witness Is Campaign Surrogate https://t.co/kyVvaUHzGg via @BreitbartNews
— Nancy Skies🍊 (@nancyskies) October 24, 2024
If that weren’t enough, it’s worth noting that the Times has the audacity to downplay Kagan’s political motives. The Free Beacon uncovered that Kagan isn’t merely a distant acquaintance but a passionate advocate for Harris, having appeared alongside her at multiple campaign events. A fair observer might question why the Times would choose to frame Kagan as an innocent bystander rather than a loyal supporter. The answer is obvious: it needs Harris to look good, and honest journalism isn’t part of their toolkit.
The real knee-slapper comes from the implication that finding evidence of Harris’s supposed summer job is complicated. The vice president of the United States, who presumably has access to a whole horde of political staffers, should have no trouble collecting the necessary paperwork to substantiate her McDonald’s employment. After all, a quick call to McDonald’s or the Social Security Administration could easily clear this up. But instead of taking this straightforward route, there seems to be a concerted effort to hide behind vague claims of difficulty, leaving the door wide open for speculation about the legitimacy of her story.
Despite the farcical nature of the Times’s coverage, one thing is abundantly clear: they would rather twist facts and avoid hard-hitting questions than risk tarnishing their favored candidate. One has to wonder what lengths the Times would go to in order to support a narrative that imprisons objective reporting. It’s almost as if they believe their readers are too uninformed to do their own digging and realize that the so-called indisputable evidence is held together by nothing more than wishful thinking and a social media push from Harris’s inner circle.
