redo Jump to...
print Print...
(by New York Post Editorial Board) – Voters carry a heavy responsibility in this election — one of the most consequential in the history of this great nation.
The choice will have reverberations* for decades, deciding which of two very different paths for the future Americans will take. [*Reverberations are defined as: effects that spread and affect a lot of people]
We must choose the following:
- A secure border and a sensible immigration system.
- Safer cities and support for law and order.
- A thriving, low-tax and low-regulation economy for all — fueled by an energy policy that supports, not penalizes, industry and households.
- Common-sense policies that restore the power of parents to choose what is best for their children on school choice, gender surgery and trans athletes playing in female sports.
- An America that’s respected on the world stage — feared by our enemies and trusted by our allies.
Only one candidate can credibly claim to lead us there. Donald Trump.
If history is any guide, the track records of the last two administrations provide a clearly comparable record.
To borrow from Ronald Reagan’s famous “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?”: Voters should ask themselves if they were better off under Trump or Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.
His opponents focus on how Trump’s administration was marked by a relentless soap opera of high drama and chaos — much of which they fueled.
And yes, many find him offensive — and we say fair enough: He can be ridiculously hyperbolic [uses extreme exaggeration].
But before COVID wreaked havoc across the globe, Trump’s first-term results were paychecks that grew markedly faster than inflation, the lowest unemployment in 50 years, a secure border and peace overseas.
In 2021, when Biden-Harris took over, the country took a hard left turn, with disastrous results.
Over these nearly four years, inflation has walloped Americans, millions of migrants have crossed the border illegally, some cities have been taken over by gangs and crime, radical and ridiculous culture wars over DEI and gender identity have set neighbor against neighbor.
Let’s not forget that overshadowing all of this, the world is on the precipice of widespread war.
Today, Trump exhibits the same strength and vigor as he did in 2016, despite the unprecedented and disgraceful weaponization of the justice system against him, two assassination attempts and the all-too-familiar constant barrage of hysterical media attacks on him.
Meanwhile, Kamala Harris has rightly been criticized as an underqualified political lightweight because she refuses to answer almost any question about the last four years or reveal any detailed future policy plans.
What may also be just as true is that she doesn’t want the American people to know the full scale of her radical plans, because it would scare them off.
Indeed, any close study of her record shows it to be that of a San Francisco progressive.
If she wins, Harris will not only co-opt Bidenism but accelerate the progressive hurricane ripping through the fabric of American society.
Voters this fall will decide if the future of our country bends toward prosperity, security, freedom, opportunity and innovation.
Or sticks with ruinous big government largesse, deliberately divisive policies, appeasement and stagnation.
Trump wants to free businesses from choking regulations and cut taxes for workers.
Harris would risk making inflation worse with even more government “freebies” to special interests — paid for with inflation-feeding debt or job-killing taxes.
Trump wants to lift restrictions on oil and gas production and “Drill, baby, drill” — boosting America’s energy independence and making the world less reliant on the West-hating Russia and Iran.
Harris co-sponsored the radical Green New Deal in the Senate, which poured billions of dollars down the drain, and boasted about her war on “Big Oil” on her campaign website.
Trump treated Iran like the terror sponsor it is — withdrawing from the sham nuclear deal, tightening sanctions and taking out top commander Qassem Soleimani.
Meanwhile, Biden-Harris have placated the ayatollahs time and again, while kneecapping Israel, emboldening Tehran and its proxies.
The burden is heavy on our shoulders this November.
But Trump and Harris want to take us down very different roads — making the choice stark and simple, but vital.
Donald Trump is the right choice.
Published at nypost .com on October 25, 2024. Reprinted here for educational purposes only. May not be reproduced on other websites without permission.
Questions
1. List the issues in this presidential race that the NY Post Editorial Board emphasizes are imperative to support.
2. What is the editors’ main reason for endorsing Trump?
3. What do the editors encourage voters to do when considering which candidate to support?
4. How do the editors address criticisms made about Donald Trump (in paragraphs 7-9)?
5. What assertions do the Post’s editors make about the Biden-Harris administration’s policies?
6. What is your reaction to each of the following points made by the NY Post Editorial Board in their endorsement of Donald Trump? (Do you agree or disagree with each assertion? Explain your answers.)
- Today, Trump exhibits the same strength and vigor as he did in 2016, despite the unprecedented and disgraceful weaponization of the justice system against him, two assassination attempts and the all-too-familiar constant barrage of hysterical media attacks on him.
- Meanwhile, Kamala Harris has rightly been criticized as an under-qualified political lightweight because she refuses to answer almost any question about the last four years or reveal any detailed future policy plans.
- What may also be just as true is that [Harris] doesn’t want the American people to know the full scale of her radical plans, because it would scare them off. Indeed, any close study of her record shows it to be that of a San Francisco progressive.
- If she wins, Harris will not only co-opt Bidenism but accelerate the progressive hurricane ripping through the fabric of American society.
- Voters this fall will decide if the future of our country bends toward prosperity, security, freedom, opportunity and innovation [with Trump].
- Or sticks with ruinous big government largesse, deliberately divisive policies, appeasement and stagnation [with Kamala Harris].
7. Do you think the Post editors make a good case for their endorsement of Donald Trump? Explain your answer.
8. Read the NY Times’ Editorial Board’s endorsement of Kamala Harris and answer the questions there.
Background
U.S. newspaper endorsements for the Democratic presidential candidate have fallen by more than 60% since 2016 after VP Kamala Harris became the party’s frontrunner, according to a rough estimate by Fox News Digital.
- In 2016, more than 240 newspapers endorsed Hillary Clinton, while only 20 endorsed Trump.
- In 2020, 120 newspapers endorsed Biden – 14 endorsed Trump.
- This year, nearly 80 newspapers endorsed Harris, and less than 10 endorsed Trump.
The Los Angeles Times, which endorsed Barack Obama in 2008, Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Joe Biden in 2020, decided not to endorse a presidential candidate this year. The decision was made by the paper’s owner, billionaire Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong. The editorial page editor Mariel Garza resigned in protest, with two more members of the editorial board following.
In an interview with the Columbia Journalism Review, Garza said in part: “I am resigning because I want to make it clear that I am not OK with us being silent. In dangerous times, honest people need to stand up. This is how I’m standing up.”
Owner Soon-Shiong, in a post on X on Wednesday, said in part that the editorial board was “provided the opportunity to draft a factual analysis of all the POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE policies by EACH candidate during their tenures at the White House, and how these policies affected the nation.”
“In this way, with this clear and non-partisan information side-by-side, our readers could decide who would be worthy of being President for the next four years,” he added. “Instead of adopting this path as suggested, the Editorial Board chose to remain silent and I accepted their decision.”
The LA Times’ editorial board had issued presidential endorsements from the 1880s through 1972, only returning to the practice to endorse Obama in 2008. Since then, it has exclusively endorsed Democratic presidential candidates.
The Los Angeles Times released its statewide and nationwide endorsements last week, including Democratic candidates for the U.S. House and Senate.
The Washington Post also will not endorse any presidential candidate this year, or in any elections in the future, per billionaire owner Jeff Bezos (owner of Amazon). Several journalists have resigned in protest. An editorial board member said: “people [journalists, editors…] are shocked, furious, surprised.” And at least 2,000 people have canceled their subscriptions in protest.
In 2016, the Post endorsed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and they endorsed President Joe Biden in 2020. In the 2016 endorsement of Clinton, the editorial board called Trump a “bigoted, ignorant, deceitful, narcissistic, vengeful, petty, misogynistic, fiscally reckless, intellectually lazy, contemptuous of democracy and enamored of America’s enemies.”
“As president, he would pose a grave danger to the nation and the world,” the editorial board wrote.
Newspapers have traditionally endorsed candidates in elections since the 19th century, when papers were more closely tied to political parties. Over time, newspapers shifted to become more independent of the party apparatus, and editorial boards for the newspapers took over endorsements, with the ideological lean of the board often an indicator of the endorsement outcome.
In 2020, several newspapers that historically endorsed Republican candidates either endorsed Biden or declined to endorse any candidate. The Arizona Republic, which had endorsed Republicans for decades, was one of the few that switched parties to endorse Biden.
Some publications that had never endorsed a presidential candidate before, like USA Today, broke with tradition in 2020 to also endorse Biden. (from Fox News Digital and ABC News with Semafor)
By issuing endorsements, newspaper editors often aim to encourage informed voting by presenting a candidate they believe will best lead on key issues affecting their readers.
Newspapers that endorse candidates often do so to highlight the values they consider important in public office, positioning themselves as influencers on civic issues.
Endorsements also serve as an extension of a media outlet’s role in society: promoting informed, engaged voters.
Outlets consider factors like a candidate’s stance on critical issues, personal integrity, experience, and, in many cases, how their policy goals align with the media organization’s editorial values.
Critics argue that endorsements can influence news coverage, potentially leading to biases in reporting. They also worry that endorsements may undermine the perceived impartiality of the press.
Ultimately, endorsements are a way for the media to support an informed and active democracy. They do this while following legal and ethical rules that keep opinion separate from unbiased news reporting. (excerpted from CBS Washington DC local WUSA9-TV)
