Surprising no one, the New York Times on Monday endorsed Kamala Harris for president – the 17^th Democratic nominee in a row the paper has endorsed, a pattern that began with its endorsement of John F. Kennedy over Richard Nixon in 1960 – an endorsement considerably more measured and muted than 2024’s loving embrace of Harris. What was a little surprising: While the left-wing editorial board predictably praised Harris, it obnoxiously referred to her as “The Only Patriotic Choice for President.”

The Times true interest was in condemning Donald Trump for a familiar litany of sins, some true, some exaggerated, some false, starting with that headline, from a paper that has long mocked conservative patriotism.

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, discipline -- that he most lacks.

Those disqualifying characteristics are compounded by everything else that limits his ability to fulfill the duties of the president: his many criminal charges, his advancing age, his fundamental lack of interest in policy and his increasingly bizarre cast of associates.

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.

The silliness continued: Harris's "competence and an unwavering commitment to the Constitution"? Since when?

As a dedicated public servant who has demonstrated care, competence and an unwavering commitment to the Constitution, Ms. Harris stands alone in this race….

Beyond the economy, Ms. Harris promises to continue working to expand access to health care and reduce its cost. She has a long record of fighting to protect women’s health and reproductive freedom. Mr. Trump spent years trying to dismantle the Affordable Care Act and boasts of picking the Supreme Court justices who ended the constitutional right to an abortion.

Criticism of Harris was paltry in comparison.

Many voters have said they want more details about the vice president’s plans, as well as more unscripted encounters in which she explains her vision and policies. They are right to ask….

The paper blamed Trump for an “insurrection at the Capitol” (a strong term for the January 6 riot).

Unless American voters stand up to him, Mr. Trump will have the power to do profound and lasting harm to our democracy.

Perhaps surprisingly, the paper briefly noted Trump’s accomplishments in office, including “his focus on Covid vaccine development paid off,” even “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.”

The editorial concluded that “Kamala Harris is the only choice.”

Left out: Not the one, but the two attempts on Donald Trump’s life. Wouldn't a fair-minded editorial admit that not all the danger to America is coming from Trump, but is in fact targeting him?

The Wall Street Journal was offended by the paper’s use of “patriotic” and reminded readers of the paper’s deep hypocrisy when it comes to the Constitution, especially the First Amendment, as Newsbusters has documented repeatedly.