Perhaps to no one's surprise, the New York Times continued an unbroken string of endorsing Democrats for president that it began in 1960.

In a hard pivot, the New York Times joined the rest of the media in turning from extolling the "joy" of Kamala's campaign to harping on her character.

The article declares that Donald Trump is unfit to hold office (the editorial is much more fun if you read this part aloud using your best Foghorn Leghorn voice).

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.

According to the editorial, "regardless of any political disagreements voters might have with her, Kamala Harris is the only patriotic choice for president."

This is as deeply dishonest as the Times's Pulitzer Prize-winning coverage of the fake "Russia collusion" story.

While the endorsement claims that Kamala's policies will aid first-time homebuyers and entrepreneurs, it is really designed to be eyewash for doing nothing. A tax credit for homebuyers does exactly one thing: It raises the cost of homes by the amount of the tax credit. A $50K tax credit may sound like a great deal until you realize that most new businesses will spend two or more years without taxable income. We don't know what the rest of her policies are. Harris has left it to campaign staff to give the correct answers when anyone in the mainstream media can be made to get off the sofa and ask. Those interpretations can be easily disavowed by Harris at any moment.

No she hasn’t. People claiming to be staffers but hiding behind anonymity claim she has, but Kamala Harris herself—who hasn’t done a single solo interview since the regime installed her—has never said anything about changing her mind on any of this. https://t.co/NOC5gAJ04E

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) September 6, 2024

In short, there is nothing in Kamala's history that indicates she is superior to Trump in any of the virtues he allegedly lacks, and there is much to show that Kamala is at least as bad. The endorsement goes into Trump's legal troubles without bothering to mention that they were the products of political prosecutions, and the outcomes of all of them seem shaky at best. It is also less than honest to discuss Trump's contrived legal problems without discussing how Kamala used an adulterous affair with California House Speaker Willie Brown to lube her upward political path.

For me, the bottom line is that you can't be a Marxist or an adherent of DEI and be even an American, much less an American patriot. Kamala's policies, to the extent to which they have been articulated, are authoritarian; they pick economic and political winners and losers based on political beliefs and immutable characteristics such as race. She is deeply dishonest, which is why she refuses to discuss her policies. 

Everyone should make their own choice in this election, but what you shouldn't do is let some midwit from the New York Times try to tell you that voting for Harris makes you a good person. It doesn't.