Kamala Harris for President

As of this date, 77.3 million Americans already voted in early voting. Many millions more are already in the mail.

To those who have not yet voted, I say: There is only one choice for president and that has to be VP Kamala Harris. I know the polls say the race is close, and several say that the former president will win the Electoral College. But, there are shifts in the latest data that lean toward the VP. The Selzer poll for the Des Moines Register considered a reliable poll in Iowa, shows Harris leading in Iowa, which is typically a red state. Their survey of the Iowa Congressional races, now with four seats held by Republicans, shows a significant shift in two districts toward the Democratic candidates.

Nate Cohn of the New York Times noted": The Times/Sienna poll shows a dead heat with Harris gaining along with late deciders in the Sun Belt while the Rust Belt tightens."

Nate Silver from the Silver Bullitin's aggregate of polls shows a 50-50 race. However, in the Swing States, he gives DJT the advantage in five of the seven states. Yet Harris may win the popular vote and lose the Electoral College if she doesn't pick up more swing state voters. He concludes by advising voters "to embrace uncertainty and to not be surprised if the breakdown of who wins each state doesn't neatly follow the current polling averages."

The Economist noted its polling data over the years has shown reluctant Trump voters and missed new and young voters. Silver cautioned against polls that herded or over-corrected, so maybe we shouldn't be hanging on every result, but it is difficult to not do so, especially if you, like me, are so convinced the differences between the two candidates are so stark.

I believe the votes from women might be the deciding factor. Some have noted that women voters over 65, who tend to vote Republican, this time may not be doing so. This might be because of the Dobbs' decision, as rights that these women fought for when they were young and thought were settled law, have now been overturned. On Saturday, thousands of women in cities across the country marched to show support for VP Harris.

Over these many months, I showed my readers why I thought DJT was incompetent, amoral, and probably losing cognitive relevance in his daily actions. Indeed, in just the past few days, he irresponsibly suggested Liz Cheney face a firing squad and someone could shoot up the media. I echoed many others as I described his fascist tendencies and his pride in his divisive remarks. Quite simply, he is unfit to ever sit again in the Oval Office, as Liz Cheney noted.

Here are some editorials from major media outlets in recent days:

The New York Times 11/2/24

"You already know Donald Trump. He is unfit to lead. Watch him. Listen to those who know him best. He tried to subvert an election and remains a threat to democracy. He helped overturn Roe, with terrible consequences. Mr. Trump's corruption and lawlessness go beyond elections: It's his whole ethos. He lies without limit. If he's re-elected, the G.O.P. won't restrain him. Mr. Trump will use the government to go after opponents. He will pursue a cruel policy of mass deportations. He will wreak havoc on the poor, the middle class, and employers. Another Trump term will damage the climate, shatter alliances, and strengthen autocrats. Americans should demand better. Vote."

American Business cannot afford another Trump Presidency NYTimes  Oct 16, 2024.

"Executives who convince themselves that they can shape Mr. Trump's decision-making should consider the record of everyone who has tried to ride the tiger in the eight years since he emerged as the leader of the Republican Party. Those expecting his instincts to be tempered by advisers, as sometimes happened during his first term, will be disappointed. His inner circle has been purged of people who say no. In a second Trump term, the secretary of state would not come from Exxon, and the secretary of the Treasury would not come from Goldman Sachs. The smart — and courageous — people have left the room. What remains are loyalists and ideologues and a decision-making process that begins and ends with the question of what is most expedient for Mr. Trump.

As president, he treated the wide-ranging powers of the federal government as instruments to reward friends and to punish enemies. According to a 2019 report by Jane Mayer of The New Yorker, Mr. Trump repeatedly pressured the Justice Department to block the merger of AT&T and Time Warner because he was mad at CNN, a Time Warner subsidiary at the time. Last month he threatened to prosecute Google because, he said, the company "has illegally used a system of only revealing and displaying bad stories about Donald J. Trump."

Los Angeles Magazine begins its endorsement of Kamala Harris with these words: (remarks in part)

"Los Angeles is a melting pot with diverse people and diverse perspectives. Los Angeles is a city of love and not hate. Donald Trump represents an existential threat to everything we love about Los Angeles. He spreads hate and division wherever he goes, as he did recently here during his visit to Pacific Palisades. On the other hand, Vice President Kamala Harris embodies the positivity, professionalism, law and order, and innovation, that we love about our city……

Finally, Donald Trump is clearly unhealthy and is presenting what could be serious dementia-like symptoms at his rallies. What this means: a vote for Trump is more likely a vote for JD Vance.

America and Los Angeles are so much better than that.

But while I could go on at length about Donald Trump's flaws, more ink needs to be spent on what the positive vision is to take America forward……

Vice President Kamala Harris doesn't get our endorsement simply because she is not Trump. Vice President Kamala Harris has earned our endorsement because she has showed she is the most qualified person in America to lead the pro-democracy coalition of Democrats, classic Republicans, and independents. VP Harris has made her candidacy about protecting the core freedoms of Americans. Freedoms like the rights of women to make their own reproductive health decisions. The rights Donald Trump ripped away by placing three Supreme Court Justices in a calculated effort to overturn Roe v. Wade…….

VP Harris promises to be a President for all Americans.
For us, this choice is simple. This choice is about real patriotism. This choice is about our future. The future of America. The future of Los Angeles. We endorse VP Kamala Harris for President of the United States."

The Economist endorsed Kamala Harris in a somewhat backhanded way–well it's British, you know, by saying: (cropped remarks)

"If The Economist failed to foresee so much in 2016, why heed our warning now? The answer is that today the risks are larger. And that is because Mr Trump's policies are worse, the world is more perilous and many of the sober, responsible people who reined in his worst instincts during his first term have been replaced by true believers, toadies, and chancers.

Good presidents unite the country. Mr Trump's political genius is for turning people against each other. After the death of George Floyd, he suggested the army shoot protesters in the leg. America's prosperity depends on the idea that people are treated fairly, regardless of their politics; Mr Trump has threatened to turn the Justice Department on his political enemies.

Next to Mr Trump, Kamala Harris stands for stability. True, she is an underwhelming machine politician. She has struggled to tell voters what she wants to do with power. 

It is hard to imagine Ms Harris being a stellar president, though people can surprise you. But you cannot imagine her bringing about a catastrophe.

Presidents do not have to be saints and we hope that a second Trump presidency would avoid disaster. But Mr Trump poses an unacceptable risk to America and the world. If The Economist had a vote, we would cast it for Ms Harris. "

So now we wait and wait; I can only hope that the election proceeds without disruption and that our country can move forward with Kamala. I am not the best reader of tea leaves here, but with the polls as they are, tea leaves might work as well as anything else!

To distract you from your worries, I present some views from the Smithsonian Zoo Cam of the newly arrived pandas. Bao Li and Qing Bao are the names of the new pandas who will be in quarantine away from the public until January. Bao Li, a male, is a grandchild of Mei Xiang and Tian Tian, and whose parent, Bao Bao was born at the D.C. zoo. Watch them play and try to not worry too much.

Til later this week, as I hope to have happy news; so with fingers crossed- Peace.

Have YOU Voted Yet?

The 2024 election is upon us. Today I dropped my absentee ballot in a nearby drop box. I expect my board of elections to notify me when it collects my ballot, and, subsequently, when my votes are tallied. Since absentee ballots are not reviewed until after election day, I assume that notice may take a while.

However, during this time, I do not anticipate any controversies about this process. I fully expect my votes to be counted and recorded properly. I spent many years working in the Democratic precinct organization and everything I saw reinforced my belief that many dedicated people are working to assure a fair and reliable system of elections. Across the years, I viewed the functions as both a candidate and as a voter.

Often I saw the same senior citizens working the check-in desk at my local precinct. They would work long hours on election day for the small fees they might earn, but, since they were experienced; they made the process work smoothly. I never knew which election worker belonged to which party, mostly, because each took off their party hat to ensure fair access for local voters. During some years, Maryland used an entirely electronic voting system, which many distrusted after the 2000-2004 elections, since some claimed that the machines could be hacked. Others noted security flaws were not investigated nor fixed in the Diebold Machines then widely in use. There was no ability to recreate a ballot result, no paper trail of any kind. Eventually, Maryland changed to a paper ballot that was electronically counted and which could be retained and recounted. Marked votes cannot be erased. All of this reinforces the integrity of our elections and should be the type of system used all over the country, in my opinion. Then, none should reasonably claim that bad actors from Italy or where- ever, are changing votes from afar.

Anyway, please vote and continue, as most voters do, to have faith in American elections. If you mail your ballot, it must be post-marked by election day November 5. Many states have early voting and activity is already reported as robust across the country. According to the Associated Press, as of this date, more than 46 million ballots have been cast. In Maryland, 440,453 votes were cast in-person and 478,447 mail-in votes have been received. Storm ravaged North Carolina reported over 2.8 million votes, with California showing a total tally of over 4 million, for example.

The Census Bureau reported that in 2020, over 66% of citizens voted despite the problems with Covid. At that time, 43% voted by mail, and 26% chose early voting. This changed the typical get-out-the-vote (GOTV) pushes by the political parties commonly seen on election eve. Voters in blue states voted early or by mail more frequently than those in red states.

158,429,631 votes were cast in the 2020 presidential election. The Census Bureau reported that there were over 250 million Americans of voting age, so many people did not vote. Hopefully, in a year as critical as this is when we are up against a wanna-be-fascist, turnout will be higher.

Many pundits are saying that DJT is pushing the mega-male image to men while answering to “Daddy Don” for women and claiming he will be their protector. Somehow. a predator con-man as a protector just doesn’t cut it for me. While others may promote the inability of a female leader to govern with strength, I present the list below.

History is on my mind. Here's some information for those who do not believe a woman can lead a country. Some women, presented below as a sample, proved their courage as they led wars, dealt with divisive factions, and united their countries.

Golda Meir Led Israel from 1969-1974

Indira Gandhi- Led India -1966-1977, 1980-84, Assassinated

Margaret Thatcher Led the UK from 1979 to 1990

Benizar Bhutto-Led Pakistan, 1988-1990, 1993-1996 Assassinated.

Corazon Aquino- led the Phllipines-1986-1992

Angela Merkel- Chancellor of Germany 2005-2021

 

The US is usually ahead of the curve and is seriously lagging here.

Time to make a change and elect Kamala Harris!

‘

Til next week- Peace!

The Enemy Within, no Joke?

Halloween is coming soon, so we expect to see lots of scary creatures around. My suburban neighborhood showcases the wonders of imagination with skeletons, ghosts, and assorted macabre creatures. All in good fun, of course. No one really expects that zombies and body snatchers will soon wander down the block.

That said, there are some actually scary things happening in the real world of politics. Now is the time, the pundits tell us, when actual everyday voters (unlike we political nerds) first start firming their opinions and paying attention to the pre-election dramas unfolding in our midst. And, in keeping with the season, there are bizarre things happening on the various campaign trails. And, these occurrences are being noticed and reported by mainstream media. Most of them reflect the strange MAGA campaign of the former president.

Recently, DJT has been speaking about "the enemy within", an odd phrase to use when referring to the American people. When VP Kamala Harris was interviewed on Fox, she discussed this use of words and the plan to use the military against Americans. Brent Baier denied this phrase was used. Harris called him out for only playing a part of the clip where the claim was made. Verify validated her claims below:

"Former President Donald Trump has said he would use the military against Americans who he referred to as "the enemy from within" in multiple interviews, as Vice President Kamala Harris claimed.

On Oct. 13, during an interview with Fox News' Maria Bartiromo, Trump was asked if he is expecting chaos on Election Day. The former president said he was not anticipating mayhem from "the side that votes for Trump" but from what he called "the enemy from within."

"I think the bigger problem is the enemy from within, not even the people that have come in and [are destroying] our country — I don't think they're the problem in terms of Election Day — I think the bigger problem are the people from within," Trump said.

"We have some very bad people; we have some sick people, radical left lunatics. And it should be very easily handled, if necessary, by the National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military, because they can't let that happen," Trump added.

Later in the interview, Trump told Bartiromo "the enemy from within, in my opinion, is more dangerous than China, Russia" and other foreign adversaries of the United States.

"I always say, so we have two enemies — we have the outside enemy and then we have the enemy from within…. The thing that's tougher to handle are these lunatics that we have inside, like Adam Schiff…. Adam Shifty Schiff, who's a total sleazebag, is going to become a senator. But I call him the enemy from within," Trump said. Democrat Rep. Adam Schiff, of California, served on the congressional committee that investigated Trump's role in the Jan. 6 insurrection.

Trump made similar comments during a taped town hall with Fox News' Harris Faulkner on Oct. 15.

"Mr. President, Kamala Harris has said you sounded 'unhinged' and 'unchecked power is in our future.' What do you say about that?" Faulkner asked Trump.

"You know, they are… they're a party of sound bites," Trump said in response. "They're very different and it is the enemy from within and they're very dangerous. They're Marxists and Communists and fascists and they're sick."

"I use a guy like Adam Schiff because they made up the Russia Russia Russia hoax…. They're dangerous for our country. We have China. We have Russia. We have all these countries. If you have a smart president, they can all be handled. The more difficult are, you know, the Pelosis — these people…. they're so sick and they're so evil," Trump continued.

In a statement, Steven Cheung, communications director for the Trump campaign, told VERIFY the former president's "enemy from within" remarks are referring to people seeking to cause chaos on Election Day.

"President Trump is 100% correct — those who seek to undermine democracy by sowing chaos in our elections are a direct threat, just like the terrorist from Afghanistan that was arrested for plotting multiple attacks on Election Day within the United States," Cheung said. These aren't the first instances of the former president using the term "enemy from within."

On Sept. 3, during an interview on the Lex Fridman Podcast, Trump told Fridman: "I believe you have to fight fire with fire. I believe they're very evil people. These are evil people. You know, we have an enemy from the outside and we have an enemy from within. And in my opinion, the enemy from within are radical left lunatics, and I think you have to fight back."

 

(The term "the enemy within" was frequently used by the ultimately disgraced Senator Joseph McCarthy in his failed quest to purge the so-called hidden Communists working in our government.)

 

Appearances before major media outlets brought out strange remarks and wild answers to serious questions, such as noted below by The New York Times about the interview conducted in Chicago by Bloomberg Editor-in-Chief, Mr. John Micklethwait, before the Economic Club of Chicago. DJT even argued with his interviewer about tariffs

"Mr. Trump's refusal to answer questions directly about his relationship with Mr. Putin was consistent with the tone throughout Tuesday's interview, which took place in a ballroom of the Fairmont hotel.

The former president frequently ignored the thrust of the questions he was asked, instead giving meandering responses that included unrelated points and hard-to-follow anecdotes. He frequently dwelt on how nicely or poorly he felt that various people, institutions and corporations had treated him.Toward the end of their conversation, Mr. Micklethwait brought up the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, by some of Mr. Trump's supporters. He asked the former president if he would commit to "respecting and encouraging a peaceful transfer of power this year."Mr. Trump would not commit to one. "Well, you had a peaceful transfer of power," he said, referring to January 2021, as some of the hundreds of business and civic leaders seated in the ballroom applauded.

Mr. Micklethwait expressed his disbelief. "You had a peaceful transfer of power compared with Venezuela," Mr. Micklethwait said. "But it was by far the worst transfer of power for a long time.""As members of the crowd booed, Mr. Trump expressed his gratitude and pointed the finger at Mr. Micklethwait, accusing him of being biased. Then, rather than answering the question, he tried to shift the subject to his false claims of election fraud.Mr. Trump minimized the violence of his supporters and alluded to conspiratorial claims that the events were spurred on by law enforcement officials. And he pointed to his eventual departure of the White House on Inauguration Day — weeks after his efforts to cling to power had failed — as evidence of a "very peaceful transfer" as he rejected Mr. Micklethwait's question. As members of the crowd booed, Mr. Trump expressed his gratitude and pointed the finger at Mr. Micklethwait, accusing him of being biased. Then, rather than answering the question, he tried to shift the subject to his false claims of election fraud."Mr. Trump minimized the violence of his supporters and alluded to conspiratorial claims that the events were spurred on by law enforcement officials. And he pointed to his eventual departure of the White House on Inauguration Day — weeks after his efforts to cling to power had failed — as evidence of a "very peaceful transfer" as he rejected Mr. Micklethwait's question.

At another event, a friendly Town Hall, the room was overheated, (some say because the campaign would not pay for AC) and two attendees required medical attention, so the Q & Awas halted as they received care.

 

According to NPR

"A Trump town hall in Oaks, Pa., Monday night went from a Q&A session to a bizarre musical event in which Donald Trump stood in front of his audience for an extended period while songs played on the sound system.

The town hall portion of the event lasted nearly an hour and was moderated by Kristi Noem, South Dakota's Republican governor, who is a Trump ally.

The questioners were all friendly to Trump, with questions about how he would bring down inflation, as well as boost small businesses.

The town hall was paused twice for incidents in which the crowd called for a medic. Audience members shouted that the room was too hot."

"Trump remained onstage for more than half an hour while an array of songs played, including "Hallelujah" as performed by Rufus Wainwright, as well as "November Rain" by Guns N' Roses.

On Tuesday, Trump, posting on his Truth Social account, called the evening "amazing."

"The Q and A was almost finished when people began fainting from the excitement and heat," he said. "We started playing music while we waited, and just kept it going. So different, but it ended up being a GREAT EVENING!

More from the Bloomberg interview  on msn:

Bloomberg; Critics say your tariffs will end up being like a national sales tax

Trump: Nope, nope. Because the countries will pay.

Micklethwait: If you have, if you have, America at the moment has three trillion dollars worth of imports. You're going to add tariffs to every single one of them. That is going to push up the cost for all those people who want to buy foreign goods. That is just simple mathematics, President Trump.

Trump: It's not. It is, but not the way you've figured. I was always very good at mathematics. Let me tell you, you're saying 3 trillion.

Micklethwait: That's 3 trillion dollars worth of imports.

Trump: And they don't have to pay. And if, by the way, the higher the tariff, the more likely it is to have them come into the country.

Micklethwait: The higher the tariff, the more you're going to put on the value of that, those goods, the higher people are going to have to pay in shops.

Trump: Ready? Ready? The higher the tariff, the more likely it is that the company will come into the United States, and build a factory in the United States, so it doesn't have to pay the tariff. If I have—

Micklethwait: That will take, that will take, that will take many, many, as you know, that will take many years.

Trump: In fact, I'll, I'll tell you, you know, there's another theory is that, uh, uh, the tariff, you make it so high, so horrible, so obnoxious that they'll come right away. When I do the 10%, 10% is really— first of all, 10% when you collect it is hundreds of billions of dollars. The numbers that you're talking, all reducing our deficit. But really, so there's two ways of looking at a tariff. You can do it as a money-making instrument, or you can do it as something to get the companies. "

And, while speaking in the town where Arnold Palmer, the famous golfer, was born, the AP reported:

"Latrobe, Pa. (AP) — Donald Trump's campaign suggested he would begin previewing his closing argument Saturday night with Election Day barely two weeks away. But the former president kicked off his rally with a detailed story about Arnold Palmer, at one point even praising the late, legendary golfer's genitalia."

You can't make this up, folks!

Today the Boston Globe endorsed Kamala Harris for President and said in part: …." that Harris has promised to be a president who leads and listens …..and can show the world that America stands for freedom, opportunity, compassion, dignity, fairness, and endless possibilities. The choice is as clear, as it is vital, send Kamala Harris to the White House."

And the Washington Zoo has Giant pandas in residence again! More TBA.

Til next week – Peace!

The Editors Speak – Will the People Follow?

Several major print sources recently published their endorsements for the 2024 Presidential race. This is traditional every four years. Due to the advent of early voting and more permissive and extended absentee voting allowances, these events appeared earlier this year. However, with fewer people tuned into print media, and newspapers in general, I wonder if these messages are still being received as before and do they reach the necessary voters who used to value these opinions?

Does the online presence of such media giants allow them to expand their reach and influence? Or are influencers on TikTok and YouTube reaching a wider audience? Do celebrity endorsements sway voters?  Since 2020 was an unusual election year with much of the country under COVID social and health restrictions, and workers and students experiencing virtual offices and classrooms the usual discussions about anything were muffled. Many then turned to the anonymity of the internet sources they could explore. Some, such as Alex Jones, now disgraced, promoted lies and hatred.

The 2020 election saw anonymous groups such as Qanon with its theories of, among others, Satan-worshipping elites, conspiracies, and global rings of pedophiles explode into the mainstream. It especially disliked Democrats and prominent entertainers and believed many to be among the child-killing conspiracies they espoused. It became a catch-all for those who questioned the death of President John Kennedy, the 911 attacks, and other widely discussed conspiracies such as the so-called Deep State. In 2016 cryptic online comments promoted the election of DJT and claimed he was chosen to prevent this evil from infiltrating the country. After his election, he appeared with QANON symbols at his rallies. Some of the more radical sites were removed by YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter at that time, but this movement became a worldwide phenomenon.

This group is hard to define, it includes right-wing members, religious fundamentalists, social outcasts, and many who were just looking for a community to engage with. The Georgia Congresswoman, Marjorie Taylor-Greene climbed onto this bandwagon, before her election in 2020. One aspect of this group is that it has no visible leader, no official spokesperson, and no one to take any responsibility for the lies and half-truths it supports.

The Anti-Defamation League noted that the blood ritual claims harken back to the anti-Semitic beliefs from the Middle Ages and explained how the movement is kept alive by its supporters.

The MAGA mouthpiece on “Truth Social” regularly re-posts QANON content and DJT sometimes wears the Q symbol to show his alliance. Of course, since the January 6^th Insurrection, QANON has regularly returned the favor and supported the disgraced former president. Elon Musk, once he bought Twitter and revised it as X, allowed Q and its content to return and expand its presence. A recent article in the New York Times noted that Musk is going all out to elect DJT and some note his PAC has so far spent over $80 million dollars and could spend as much as $500 million.

The Times technology report noted the following:

“Over half the accounts tracked by The Times have discussed baseless rumors that the attempted assassination of Mr. Trump in July was orchestrated by powerful Democrats. Combined, their posts were shared three million times in the 24 hours after the shooting.

Every day, about a quarter of a billion people use X, which remains a popular destination for news. The power of the reinstated accounts to shape the discourse on the platform is enormous, as is the risk, said Isabelle Frances-Wright, the director of technology and society at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, a nonprofit research organization.

“X has gone from being a social network to, frankly at this point, an online opinion news network where the majority of the narratives and hateful content come from a very small group of people who affect the entirety of the platform in an outsized way,” Ms. Frances-Wright said.

In late August, Mr. Trump claimed on X that Ms. Harris would destroy Social Security by allowing undocumented immigrants to tap into the program — a fear-mongering tactic that has informed false narratives claiming that Democrats are enabling noncitizens to vote.

As the election nears, some of the high-profile reinstated accounts have begun to pre-emptively cast doubt on the results. Much of the commentary is reminiscent of the conspiracy theories that swirled after the 2020 election and in the lead-up to the Jan. 6 riot.”

So, we do not know the effects of this non-traditional approach to electioneering. I assume that X will influence many voters. Whether this scurrilous rant will influence the electorate enough to elect the MAGA team, I don’t know. I wish that more members of the media would also stop using the site, but it has become a necessary stop along the online circuits.

The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision allowed this to happen when it said money is speech and permitted unknown payers with millions and billions in their pockets to fund election campaigns. The FCC regulates campaign ads to a point, but many lies are spread routinely because candidates know that restraint is cumbersome and may not ever happen before the voters make their selections. So they put falsehoods out there and say “my bad” when caught, but they got their message out on the airwaves, so they truly do not care.

Now to get back to traditional media. Does it still play a role in these high-stakes games? Truly they are not games, as I believe, with many, that the future of our democracy is on the line more than ever before in this election. I hope that they will reach a wide audience of responsible voters.

Several media editorials appeared recently and gave their reasons for supporting VP Kamala Harris for election. I only list three here …and even though I truncated them, they are long, so bear with me.

The Atlantic Monthly rarely endorses but it did so this year here

It explained that it endorsed Abraham Lincoln in 1860, Lyndon Johnson in 1964, and Hillary Clinton in 2016. The following is only a portion of the editorial.

“About the candidate we are endorsing: The Atlantic is a heterodox place, staffed by freethinkers, and for some of us, Kamala Harris’s policy views are too centrist, while for others they’re too liberal. The process that led to her nomination was flawed, and she’s been cagey in keeping the public and press from getting to know her as well as they should. But we know a few things for sure. Having devoted her life to public service, Harris respects the law and the Constitution. She believes in the freedom, equality, and dignity of all Americans. She’s untainted by corruption, let alone a felony record or a history of sexual assault. She doesn’t embarrass her compatriots with her language and behavior, or pit them against one another. She doesn’t curry favor with dictators. She won’t abuse the power of the highest office in order to keep it. She believes in democracy. These, and not any specific policy positions, are the reasons The Atlantic is endorsing her.”

If you’re a conservative who can’t abide Harris’s tax and immigration policies, but who is also offended by the rottenness of the Republican Party, only Trump’s final defeat will allow your party to return to health—then you’ll be free to oppose President Harris wholeheartedly. We believe that American politics are healthiest when vibrant conservative and liberal parties fight it out on matters of policy.

If you’re a progressive who thinks the Democratic Party is a tool of corporate America, talk to someone who still can’t forgive themselves for voting for Ralph Nader in 2000—then ask yourself which candidate, Harris or Trump, would give you any leverage to push for policies you care about.

Trump is the sphinx who stands in the way of America entering a more hopeful future. In Greek mythology, the sphinx killed every traveler who failed to answer her riddle, until Oedipus finally solved it, causing the monster’s demise. The answer to Trump lies in every American’s hands. Then he needs only to go away.”

The New York Times also endorsed VP Kamala Harris and said this in its editorial (partially copied below)

“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, and discipline — that he most lacks. This unequivocal, dispiriting truth — Donald Trump is not fit to be president — should be enough for any voter who cares about the health of our country and the stability of our democracy to deny him re-election.

For this reason, regardless of any political disagreements voters might have with her, Kamala Harris is the only patriotic choice for president. And is a dedicated public servant who has demonstrated care, competence, and an unwavering commitment to the Constitution. Ms. Harris stands alone in this race. She may not be the perfect candidate for every voter, especially those who are frustrated and angry about our government’s failures to fix what’s broken — from our immigration system to public schools to housing costs to gun violence. Yet we urge Americans to contrast Ms. Harris’s record with her opponent’s.

Ms. Harris is more than a necessary alternative. There is also an optimistic case for elevating her, one that is rooted in her policies and borne out by her experience as vice president, a senator, and a state attorney general.

Over the past 10 weeks, Ms. Harris has offered a shared future for all citizens, beyond hate and division. She has begun to describe a set of thoughtful plans to help American families. While character is enormously important — in this election, pre-eminently so — policies matter. Many Americans remain deeply concerned about their prospects and their children in an unstable and unforgiving world. For them, Ms. Harris is clearly the better choice. She has committed to using the power of her office to help Americans better afford the things they need, to make it easier to own a home, to support small businesses, and to help workers. Mr. Trump’s economic priorities are more tax cuts, which would benefit mostly the wealthy, and more tariffs, which will make prices even more unmanageable for the poor and middle class.

Ms. Harris recognizes the need for global solutions to the global problem of climate change and would continue President Biden’s major investments in the industries and technologies necessary to achieve that goal. Mr. Trump rejects the accepted science, and his contempt for low-carbon energy solutions is matched only by his trollish fealty to fossil fuels.

In 2020 this board made the strongest case it could against the re-election of Mr. Trump. Four years later, many Americans have put his excesses out of their minds. We urge them and those who may look back at that period with nostalgia or feel that their lives are not much better now than they were three years ago to recognize that his first term was a warning and that a second Trump term would be much more damaging and divisive than the first.

Kamala Harris is the only choice.”

 

The Nation made its endorsement for Harris in a long editorial,  here and which is only quoted partially. It noted some disagreements with Harris, but said the alternative is not acceptable.

 

“The great strength of Kamala Harris’s unlikely but existentially important campaign for the presidency is her powerful grasp of what is at stake in this election. “In many ways, Donald Trump is an unserious man,” Harris declared in her acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention. But as she reminded the delegates, “the consequences of putting Donald Trump back in the White House are extremely serious.”ocracy posed by a reelected “Donald Trump with no guardrails”—especially after the Supreme Court’s recent 6–3 decision granting him “presumptive immunity” from criminal prosecution for his official acts—Harris urged Americans to “consider what he intends to do if we give him power again. Consider his explicit intent to set free violent extremists who assaulted those law enforcement officers at the Capitol. His explicit intent to jail journalists, political opponents, and anyone he sees as the enemy. His explicit intent to deploy our active-duty military against our own citizens.”

We believe those threats are real. Of course, we endorse Harris over Trump. But we also endorse Harris in her own right, as an experienced and capable leader with a vision for America’s future that—while not as progressive as we might prefer, particularly when it comes to foreign policy—represents a clear advance on the Democratic presidential nominees of the past half-century.

Harris has long been an eloquent and tireless fighter for reproductive freedom. She spent the months following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization highlighting the connections between that assault and the other Republican efforts to roll back our rights. …Some of these proposals outlined in Project 2025.

And although some of her wealthy backers haven’t been shy in pressing her to fire Fe deral Trade Commission chair Lina Khan, Harris has, so far at least, stood firm behind Khan and the anti-monopoly agenda she has pursued at the FTC.

On foreign policy, however, the positive case is harder to make. Her change in tone, and her statements taking note of the horrendous death toll among Palestinian civilians, while welcome, might also be little more than the standard “pro-Israeli, pro-Palestinian, but subtly more pro-Israeli…

On the war in Ukraine, Harris’s position is hawkish. On relations with Russia and China, she has done nothing to indicate any departure from the Biden administration’s belligerent rhetoric….Still, anyone promoting Trump as a peace candidate needs to check their eyesight. Or their privilege.

Donald Trump has been a cancer on our public life since his days posing as a successful casino operator. His pervasive influence not just on our politics but on our manners, conversations, imaginations, and media developed a momentum that, until Biden withdrew, seemed likely to carry this habitual liar and adjudicated rapist back to the pinnacle of power.

Leftists contemplating voting for a third party in protest of Harris’s shortcomings—or out of discontent with our two-party system—need to ask themselves why their particular cause, or their personal discomfort, is more important than making sure that Trump, JD Vance, and their claque of congressional collaborators are defeated decisively….

Harris deserves credit for moving nearly $25 million from her campaign to down ballot races. The vice president knows she can’t afford to win narrowly in the battleground states; for her and Walz to govern effectively, to break the fever of Trumpism, they also need to lift Democrats in the races that will decide control of the House and Senate.

The insurrectionists who attacked the Capitol on January 6, 2021, may have been unsuccessful. Their aims, however, were part of a long campaign to drag this country back ….(in the words of the Dred Scott decision), women had no control over their own bodies, corporations were free to pollute our air and water, and employers were allowed to terrorize and discard their workers.

Job one for Harris, then, is to defeat Trump—and Trumpism—decisively this November. Yet the current moment, and Harris’s campaign, offers more than merely a chance to wake from our long national nightmare."

Til next week-Peace!