The New York Times, to the breathless anticipation of the nation, announced it’s presidential endorsement today.
I’ve just read and re-read the entire editorial, and I’m still confused.
The Times editors spent 22 paragraphs on explaining their decision. Six of those paragraphs mentioned Senator Kerry by name. Eighteen are about President Bush, and how terrible they think he is.
I guess it’s because I’m not some properly educated and highly-paid journalist, but I just don’t see the nuances here. To me, it looks more like the Times is not endorsing Bush than endorsing Kerry.
You’d think that since the Times owns the Boston Globe, which over the years has given Kerry levels of support that border on being able to claim him as a dependent on their taxes, they’d be able to find more positive reasons to back their guy.
It just goes to show what I’ve been saying all along: Kerry’s backers are much more motivated by their opposition to Bush than their favoring Kerry.
(hat tip to Michele for calling attention to the actual breakdown of the endorsement)