Oh no, the Brits hate The Donald

British newspapers are endorsing Kamala Harris for president. Well, fools rush in where Jeff Bezos and 200 or so Gannett newspapers fear to tread. But the endorsers live in England, which has no Electoral College votes thanks to George Washington and company.

The Financial Times endorsed Kamala on Thursday, noting, “Harris is far from a perfect candidate. Since entering the contest late after President Joe Biden’s withdrawal, she has struggled to define herself in her own terms. In a race where the economy leads voter concerns, her remedies seem at best half-baked. But Americans need not like what is on Harris’s to-do list to see that this is no apple-to-apple comparison. This is an election in which one candidate accepts the U.S. constitutional order. The other wants to overturn it.”

Given that in two presidential cycles now, Kamala has received exactly zero votes in any primary, she is hardly the paragon of constitutional norms.

FT then said, “Trump’s economic program amounts to a rejection of America’s postwar global role. He would slap 20% tariffs on all imports and at least 60% on goods from China. Contrary to what Trump asserts, tariffs are not a tax on foreign companies. Their cost would largely be borne by the U.S. consumer through higher prices.”

Rubbish. He imposed tariffs on imports from Red China and left office with the lowest inflation rate in decades: 1.4%.

He led the best economy since LBJ until Red China unleashed covid and its Democrat Party operatives and Chinese moles like Fauci used that as an excuse to shut down the economy.

In its closing statement, FT said, “Where Trump threatens a perilous rupture, Harris represents continuity with the values of liberal democracy and free and open trade — the bedrock of prosperity for America and its partners.”

Our partners?

The mayor of England’s capital mocked Trump repeatedly and flew a balloon depicting Trump as a crying baby during a state visit. A nation that treats like that a head of state it invited is no friend or partner. It is a leech that feeds on our prosperity.

Likewise, the Economist said, “If The Economist had a vote, we would cast it for Kamala Harris.”

Well, you don’t. Sod off.

That is what amuses me. These ink-stained wretches believe Americans care what their publications say. We don’t care what our own newspapers say. Of course, dumping on Trump is safe for British papers. If they dare take on Keir Starmer, their prime minister, they would get in trouble, wouldn’t they?

The Economist did admit they were wrong about Trump 8 years ago:

Some will dismiss this as alarmism. It is true that our worst fears about Mr. Trump’s first term did not come to pass. At home, he cut taxes and deregulated the economy, which has grown faster than any of its rich-world counterparts. His administration deserves credit for funding vaccines for covid-19, even if he refused to urge Americans to get vaccinated. Abroad, he projected strength, shifting the consensus towards a confrontational posture on China. He helped broker the Abraham accords, which formalized relations between Israel and some of its neighbors—a peace that has so far survived a regional war. He prodded some of America’s allies to increase their defense spending. Even when Mr. Trump behaved abominably by fomenting an attack on the Capitol to try to stop the transfer of power on January 6th, 2021, America’s institutions held firm.

But!

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.

Toadies and chancers is a vast improvement over calling us deplorable Nazi garbage. The Brits have better vocabularies than we do.

But they also show a lot of gall in trying to tell us what to do. I thought we settled all that in 1776 with our revolution and the Declaration of Shove It Where the Sun Doesn’t Shine. They blew a 13 colony lead, didn’t they?

But that did not stop the Guardian from endorsing (fill-in-the-blank) over Trump.

It said, “Political hope fades when we settle for what is, instead of fighting for what could be. Ms. Harris embodies the conviction that it’s better to believe in democracy’s potential than to surrender to its imperfections. The Republican agenda is clear: voter suppression, book bans and tax cuts for billionaires. Democrats seek global engagement; the GOP favors isolation. The Biden-Harris administration laid the groundwork for a net zero America. A Trumpian comeback would undo it. A Harris win, with a Democratic Congress, means a chance to restore good governance, create good jobs and lead the entire planet’s climate efforts. Defeating Mr. Trump protects democracy from oligarchy and dictatorship. There is too much at stake not to back Ms. Harris for president.”

Um, Ms. Harris is as articulate as an artichoke.

Her main selling point is she is dumber than a bikini shop in Antarctica. She was nominated because she would allow the bureaucracy — the deep state — to run the country, something the Founding Fathers deliberately sought to avoid in the Constitution.

The Guardian’s sister publication, the Observer, said, “Americans who believe in democracy have no choice but to vote for Harris.”

If you have no choice, you have no democracy.

Anyway, the Observer said, “This election may pivot on choices made by a few thousand people in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia and Arizona. It could be that, as happened to Clinton in 2016, Harris wins the national popular vote but loses the electoral college. Or this wacky system could produce the opposite result. It’s estimated that about 15% of voters remain undecided. That’s more than enough to settle the outcome. It’s still all up for grabs.”

We do not have direct elections for president, but the British don’t directly elect their prime minister, in a wackier system in which the king can veto the election.

A few thousand people in Holborn and St. Pancras decided Britain’s election when they re-elected Starmer whom Parliament then picked as PM.

What these endorsements lack in facts and logic, they make up in marketing savvy. The Brits seek seek clicks from American liberals who feel abandoned by Jeff Bezos.

Good move.