Staff Reports
The New York Times editorial board has recently thrown its weight behind Vice President Kamala Harris, presenting her as the veritable embodiment of patriotism in the upcoming presidential election. However, the board’s rhetoric leaves one wondering if their editorial room has been under the influence of too many high-priced organic lattes. While they sing Harris’s praises, they simultaneously roll out a laundry list of grievances against Donald Trump, whose “criminal charges” and “bizarre associates” have somehow hurt his chances more than his decades of business acumen and substantial accomplishments. It’s as if the board believes disqualifying anyone based on character is fair game, yet conveniently forgets the multitude of character flaws in other candidates.
The editorial makes an audacious appeal for voters to park their political differences with Harris on the curb and endorse her come November. It’s a wonder if the Times has ever seen the colossal chasm between conservative values and those championed by Harris, and yet they ask for unity? In a move reminiscent of a magician performing sleight-of-hand, the board suggests that Harris is a dedicated public servant driven by a commitment to the Constitution, yet many Americans might struggle to recall what exactly her record includes apart from a dazzling array of empty promises and convoluted speeches.
The New York Times editorial board appears determined to present Harris not just as a contender, but as the one answer to fix all that’s wrong with America. In their attempt to frame her as a beacon of hope for families facing an array of societal issues, the board conveniently overlooks her contributions to the baffling crisis in California, from abysmal schooling systems to skyrocketing housing costs. It’s hard to reconcile the notion that Harris has a management approach that could solve these problems when her tenure as a state attorney general featured more headlines than tangible solutions.
When it comes to economic discussion, Harris is portrayed as a selfless crusader ready to tackle the throbbing worries of the American people. The Times implies that her plans are substantive, despite them sounding often like a rehearsed bumper sticker. This begs the question: in the grand scheme of fiscal prudence, what sets her apart from the previous administration? The veiled suggestion that Trump’s tax cuts solely benefited the wealthy overlooks the reality of small business stimulation and job creation. Readers are reminded that the “compassionate” path of Harris works wonders only in the imaginary world where money is an unlimited resource.
The NYT Editorial Board Endorsed Harris, and Just Wait Until You Hear Their Reasoning! 🔥😡 https://t.co/kanPgyX2Z2
— Paula 🗽 (@LakeGirlPaula) September 30, 2024
The editorial also throws in a side dish of international relations, subtly implying that Harris would wrap the world in an embrace of democratic ideals while Trump is slandered for cozying up to “autocrats.” Ironically, the Times seems to forget that many of Trump’s critics in Congress have previously praised their relationships with these same leaders. Furthermore, when it comes to climate change—a hot-button issue—Harris is presumed to uphold Biden’s initiatives, while Trump is labeled as a science-doubting neanderthal. This dichotomy is deliciously ironic, considering Biden’s “major investments” are really just another way to funnel taxpayer dollars into technically dubious green projects.
Not to be outdone, the issue of immigration gets its own slice of the pie in this editorial. The board portrays Harris as a light in an otherwise dark tunnel, seeking bipartisan compromise, while labeling Trump’s approach as dehumanizing. Yet, one can’t help but chuckle at how often Harris’s proposals veer closer to the realm of fantasy rather than adopting any concrete plans that could actually secure borders. It would seem that the Times is convinced a positive spin is enough to infuse credibility into Harris’s shaky record. The unchecked optimism from the editorial board raises eyebrows rather than hope, showcasing an alarming disconnect from the very real frustrations of American voters.
