In a recent discussion, political analysts David Brooks and LZ Granderson examined the implications of Donald Trump's allies defending him against criticisms from former Chief of Staff John Kelly. They noted that many senior military figures, including General Mark Milley and Stan McChrystal, share concerns about Trump potentially threatening the military's non-political role. Brooks emphasized that while Kelly's comments stem from sincerity, the argument framing Trump as a fascist has not resonated with undecided voters, who are more focused on economic issues and immigration.

As Vice President Kamala Harris prepares to deliver closing arguments at the Ellipse, the site of the January 6 Capitol attack, both analysts questioned the effectiveness of her message. They suggested that focusing on economic concerns and reproductive rights would be more beneficial than invoking terms like \"fascism,\" which may confuse voters and detract from pressing issues.

Brooks also highlighted a disconnect between political timing and societal readiness for change, arguing that significant political movements often follow cultural shifts. He expressed concern that Harris lacks the cultural momentum necessary for a successful campaign.

The conversation shifted to the recent decision by major newspapers, including the LA Times and Washington Post, to refrain from endorsing candidates in the upcoming election. Granderson expressed disappointment, stating that such non-endorsements undermine the journalistic integrity that has evolved over decades. Brooks echoed this sentiment, emphasizing the importance of editorial independence and questioning the effectiveness of presidential endorsements in today's political climate.

Both analysts concluded that while endorsements may not sway public opinion significantly, the principle of maintaining editorial integrity remains crucial in the current political landscape.