The New York Times, to the breathless anticipation of the nation, announced it’s presidential endorsement today.
I think.
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.
J.
(hat tip to Michele for calling attention to the actual breakdown of the endorsement)
Good News.
Bush Increases Lead in Swing States
You are very right when you said the ed was mostly stating why they aren’t backing Bush. The article gives off the lesser of two evil feel, but stating some good things about the other guy to disgise it.
The St. Pete Times did something very similar today – their lead editorial is worded “why we can’t endorse Bush……”
When the Fraternal Order of Police announced they supported Bush there was dead silence. The New York Slimes endorses Kerry and even Fox News Channel can’t stop talking about it. Who would you vote for? A man who’s supported by a newspaper staffed by effete poseurs, or a man who’s supported by an organization of cops who are actually protecting Americans?
My favorite line from the NYT: “He strikes us, above all, as a man with a strong moral core.” I wonder if they did a poll looking for words that describe the two candidates, how many people would choose Kerry over Bush as the candidate with the strong more core.
Let me see, his strong moral core made him vote against Gulf War I, you know the one that helped expose Hussein’s more-advanced-than-thought nuclear weapons program.
He is also the one who, after his divorce from his first rich widow, had it officially annulled by the Catholic church so he could marry a still-richer rich widow (Ms. Heinz) even though this essentially resulted in his children from the first marriage be declared bastards in the eyes of the Catholic church.
Oh yeah, he’s got a strong moral core, all right. And Jimmy Carter teaches Sunday School, don’t ya know.
Correction to previous comment: the first Mrs. Kerry was not a widow when Kerry married her, but she was a rich heiress (approx $300 million). More on Kerry’s strong moral core from Ann Coulter’s column, “Just a Gigolo”