In endorsing Kamala Harris, The New York Times said many strange things, starting with the headline. It called Harris “The only patriotic choice for president.”
Color me curious because the Times frowns on anyone who identifies as an American patriot. The Gray Lady’s knees jerk at a word it associates with being a white racist who has a blue collar job and lives in a fly-over state.
For the snooty jet set, patriotism is for suckers and Donald Trump supporters.
Yet here is the Times draping Harris in red, white and blue. It’s as phony as her claim that she’s “fighting” for the middle class.
The weird vibe grew weirder because the first three paragraphs of the endorsement were all about how rotten, terrible, awful Trump is.
Not until the fourth paragraph did the paper mention Harris, and it came with a backhanded compliment. After saying, “regardless of any political disagreements voters might have with her,” the editorial repeated the claim that she is “the only patriotic choice.”
It’s like saying we know you don’t like her or her policies, but the other guy is worse. Trust us.
Hell no!
Gray Lady’s old routine
There was zero doubt Harris would get the endorsement because the Times hasn’t backed a Republican for president since Dwight Eisenhower in 1956. But what is striking is the extremely weak case the editors present.
Unable to find a solid thing to say, the paper claimed she “has offered a shared future for all citizens, beyond hate and division,” as if every candidate doesn’t promise that. It also lowered the bar to say “She has begun to describe a set of thoughtful plans to help American families.”
“Begun?” She’s been vice president for nearly four years, the nominee for months — and is just starting “to describe” her policies?
Fortunately, making the case for Trump is much easier. Here are the three main reasons why I am voting for him.
First, he’s been right on the domestic issues that are most important — the economy and the border. A Wall Street Journal poll finds that voters in seven battleground states prefer him on both.
By 10 points, the Journal writes, respondents say Trump would better handle the economy. His margin jumps to 16 points on border security and immigration. The comparisons are beyond dispute.
On the economy, Dems engaged in binge-spending that inflated prices by some 30% on food, energy and other essentials, and most workers’ real wages have fallen.
Until COVID came along in Trump’s final year, inflation was low and real wages were rising, especially for working-class Americans.
Thanks to tax cuts and deregulation, black and Latino workers were narrowing the income gap with whites.
A rising tide really was lifting all boats.
The border offers an even more dramatic comparison. Trump built some of the wall he promised and developed tough policies, including the “remain in Mexico” program that required asylum seekers to wait there until hearings were held.
Out of pure hatred for anything Trump did, Biden and Harris ended those policies and sent a “come and get it signal” to the world.
Well, the world came, to the tune of more than 12 million people.
City and state taxpayers across the nation are being staggered by the costs, terror watch lists are swamped and officials lost track of more than 300,000 children who crossed the border without a parent, according to the Department of Homeland Security
World-class leadership
Foreign policy is the second reason why I’m voting for Trump, and again the Journal finds the public agrees he did a better job. Its poll reports that, by 50% to 39%, battleground voters say he is better able to handle the Russia-Ukraine war.
By 48% to 33%, they say Trump would better handle the Israel-Hamas war.
The fundamental difference is that Trump understands the concept of peace through strength, while Biden and Harris see American power mostly as a shameful relic — which flashes weakness to dictators.
Their cut-and-run from Afghanistan led Iran, Russia and China to fill the vacuum. Israel and Ukraine are the first victims, but four more years would create more conflicts and raise the odds of global war.
The culture wars are the third big reason why I want Trump elected. The rise of antisemitism on college campuses reflects a dereliction by university presidents, faculties and administrators.
Yet Biden and Harris have mouthed only platitudes while undercutting Israel’s fight for survival against Islamic terrorists, who are also our enemies.
And the White House is shamefully silent about domestic antisemitism because it’s coming from their party’s left wing.
Other examples of cultural madness include the administration’s attacks on the First and Second Amendments, the near-religious devotion to transgender ideology and using elementary schools to indoctrinate children in radical gender and race theories.
Finally, there is the use of legislation and the courts to punish political opponents.
A dozen blue states tried to keep Trump off this year’s ballot, and the former president is the first in history to face prosecution after leaving office.
All the cases were brought by Democrat prosecutors, and bear the fingerprints of the White House.
A Trump victory would be a resounding rebuke to all these assaults and a comeuppance for the corrupt media that forfeited credibility in lockstep support of the leftist agenda.
His own worst enemy
Given his record and the way the world is unraveling, Trump should be heading toward a landside.
He’s not and there’s one clear reason: him.
More specifically, his use of nasty, childish insults instead of arguments is part of an inexplicable pattern that turns off many voters.
Day after day, he calls opponents and critics dumb, stupid, lunatics, crazy and idiots. Women are the most frequent targets.
All insults, all the time was a novelty — in 2015.
If you were an undecided voter, especially a woman, would Trump calling Harris or Liz Cheney dumb” or “stupid” make you vote for him — or against him?
That’s not to suggest his crude language is more important than his policies. But in a race this tight, almost anything could be decisive.
And if Trump wins, alienating large numbers of people with insults will make it harder to get anything done. Governing requires compromises and trust.
The day after he was wounded in the first assassination attempt, a shocked Trump told me, “I want to try to unite the country.”
As we sat on his plane en route to the GOP convention in Milwaukee, a white bandage covering his right ear, he seemed wistful about the challenge, saying “I don’t know if it’s possible.”
To be sure, Dems are no better and often worse. The language many use about Trump and his followers is part of why he was the would-be assassins’ target.
Still, as the campaign enters the final stretch, Trump should remember why he thought it important to tone down the rhetoric.
And this time he should do something about it and lead by example.
