The New York Times’ sole positive stance on Kamala Harris is her contrast to Trump

The New York Times editorial board endorsed Kamala Harris for president on Monday, focusing more on criticizing Donald Trump than highlighting Harris’s accomplishments. The editorial spent 16 paragraphs discussing Trump, overshadowing the limited mention of Harris’s achievements.

The editorial failed to provide specific details of Harris’s accomplishments, only mentioning the positions she held and her advocacy for women’s health and reproductive rights. The lack of concrete examples of her achievements raised questions about her qualifications.

In contrast, the Times’ 2020 endorsement of Biden highlighted his legislative achievements, policy positions, and foreign policy experience without mentioning Trump. This comparison raises doubts about Harris’s capabilities as a presidential candidate.

The editorial also acknowledged Trump’s accomplishments, such as border security measures and Covid vaccine development efforts. These acknowledgments contrasted with the vague praise given to Harris for her commitment to the Constitution.

Harris’s lack of specific policy details and avoidance of tough questions have raised concerns about her transparency and readiness for the presidency. The editorial pointed out the need for Harris to provide more clarity on her policies and demonstrate unscripted interactions to build trust with voters.

The Times’ focus on criticizing Trump throughout the editorial detracted from evaluating Harris’s qualifications objectively. This approach may undermine the credibility of the endorsement and weaken Harris’s candidacy in the eyes of voters.

Instead of constantly condemning Trump, the Times editors should hold higher standards for assessing and endorsing presidential candidates. The editorial’s emphasis on attacking Trump detracts from providing a thorough analysis of Harris’s readiness for the presidency.

Dan McLaughlin is a senior writer at National Review. Twitter: @BaseballCrank