The New York Times officially enters the campaign for the American presidential election. The editorial board announced Monday that it supported Kamala Harris, designating her as “the only patriotic choice” against Donald Trump.
The influential American newspaper, however, did not mention the name of the vice-president before the fourth paragraph, preferring to focus on a criticism of the candidacy of her Republican opponent. “This unequivocal, discouraging truth – Donald Trump is unfit to be president – should be enough for any voter who cares about our country and the stability of our democracy to deny him re-election.”
Balance sheet versus balance sheet
The committee acknowledges that the vice president “may not be the perfect candidate for every voter, especially those who are frustrated and angry about our government’s failures to fix what has been broken.” “Yet we urge Americans to compare Ms. Harris’s record with that of her rival,” he explains, adding that Kamala “Harris is more than a necessary alternative.”
For the New York Timesit is rather rare to officially express a choice for a Republican in the race for the White House. The editorial committee has not supported a candidate from this camp for a presidential election since 1956, with Dwight Eisenhower.
This election is “about something more fundamental” than “competing policies and principles” in a two-party system, the committee says. “Unless American voters stand up to him, Mr. Trump will have the power to do deep and lasting damage to our democracy.”
The “NYT” attacks the Republican Party
However, for the newspaper, American voters are also right to ask for details on the Democrat’s proposals. She can run a campaign “with the idea that being the only viable alternative to Mr. Trump can be enough to lead her to victory,” the committee continues. A strategy that “may ultimately pay off, but it is a disservice to Americans and its own bottom line.”
Additionally, the editorial board calls the Republican Party “a mere instrument” of Donald Trump “in his quest to reclaim power” and asserts that a second term for the billionaire “would be far more damaging and divisive than his first.” . “Kamala Harris is the only choice,” he concludes.
Related News :