Monday’s Political Thoughts

As September bows and moves out of the limelight, the NY Times announces in an editorial that they support Kamala Harris for President in 2024.

Part of me shrugged. It’s considered a liberal paper; many will dismiss its opinion. Another voice in me said, “No, this is good. It will help the Undecided make a choice.” Maybe, I replied. Easier understanding my cats’ meows than it is to follow the Undecided’s reasoning sometimes.

The NY Times invoked some of the Undecided’s reasoning. Kamala Harris is not being specific enough in her plans and policies, they complain.

Trump supporters will pull out the pieces of good the paper cites for Trump and say, “See? Even that librul rag says Trump was good.”

“In particular, he broke decades of Washington consensus and led both parties to wrestle with the downsides of globalization, unrestrained trade and China’s rise. His criminal-justice reform efforts were well placed, his focus on Covid vaccine development paid off, and his decision to use an emergency public health measure to turn away migrants at the border was the right call at the start of the pandemic”. 

They’ll dismiss where the NYT opines, “Yet even when the former president’s overall aim may have had merit, his operational incompetence, his mercurial temperament and his outright recklessness often led to bad outcomes. Mr. Trump’s tariffs cost Americans billions of dollars. His attacks on China have ratcheted up military tensions with America’s strongest rival and a nuclear superpower. His handling of the Covid crisis contributed to historic declines in confidence in public health, and to the loss of many lives. His overreach on immigration policies, such as his executive order on family separation, was widely denounced as inhumane and often ineffective.”

The NY Times then continues to tear Trump a new editorial asshole over his many failures.

Trump supporters will disagree about those.

In the end, it’s a recommendation and much of it is about how Trump is unfit to be President. As the Times announced in 2016.

And even back then, someone demanded in the comments to the Times 2016 recommendation, “But why should someone vote for Clinton? Simply because she’s “not Trump?” She flipflops more than most politicians (just in the last year or so: Keystone pipeline, TPP, gay marriage). She’s consistent only on one thing: She never met a Middle East war she didn’t like, a Middle East war that she thinks the US should steer clear of — and yet her supporters have the audacity to insist that Trump would be more “dangerous.” If Clinton were President right now, we’d probably have ground troops in Libya and Syria, and maybe even the Ukraine. How that qualifies her as the “peace” candidate escapes me.”

For many, the dilemma remains strangely unchanged despite the history of Trump’s relentless lying, criminal convictions, flipflopping, weird and bizarre statements and behavior, and Project 2025.

And that’s the problem we still face as a nation.