October 16, 2004
THE TIMES ENDORSES ANYBODY BUT BUSH
John Kerry for President (NYTimes, 10/17/04)
Senator John Kerry goes toward the election with a base that is built more on opposition to George W. Bush than loyalty to his own candidacy. But over the last year we have come to know Mr. Kerry as more than just an alternative to the status quo. We like what we've seen. He has qualities that could be the basis for a great chief executive, not just a modest improvement on the incumbent.Amusingly, the Times goes on from there to bash the President for most of the rest of its editorial, coming back to mention Senator Kerry only in the last few paragraphs. About the specifics of a Kerry presidency, all they say is "We appreciate his sensible plan to provide health coverage for most of the people who currently do without. . . . Mr. Kerry has an aggressive and in some cases innovative package of ideas about energy, aimed at addressing global warming and oil dependency." Everything else is that Bush is bad, and Kerry isn't Bush.We have been impressed with Mr. Kerry's wide knowledge and clear thinking - something that became more apparent once he was reined in by that two-minute debate light. He is blessedly willing to re-evaluate decisions when conditions change. And while Mr. Kerry's service in Vietnam was first over-promoted and then over-pilloried, his entire life has been devoted to public service, from the war to a series of elected offices. He strikes us, above all, as a man with a strong moral core.
When it comes to discussing the President's tenure, the Times throws its lot in with the wacked-out left:
There is no denying that this race is mainly about Mr. Bush's disastrous tenure. Nearly four years ago, after the Supreme Court awarded him the presidency, Mr. Bush came into office amid popular expectation that he would acknowledge his lack of a mandate by sticking close to the center. Instead, he turned the government over to the radical right.A good rule of thumb for conservatives has long been that, if the Times is against it, it must be good for the country. Here, the Times makes clear that while a vote for John Kerry is a leap of faith, the President has been busy remaking the nation and the world. Read the Times, and then vote for Bush. Posted by David Cohen at October 16, 2004 9:48 PM
You could have saved youself some time, OJ, by posting that headline any time after Dec. 14, 2000.
Posted by: John at October 16, 2004 10:00 PMWhat a surprise.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at October 16, 2004 10:27 PM"He strikes us, above all, as a man with a strong moral core".
So did Stalin, when the Times wrote his obit.
Geez--that's the most staggeringly asinine statement the Grey Lady has produced in a long time--and that's saying something.
Posted by: Ed Driscoll at October 16, 2004 11:53 PMMr. Bush came into office amid popular expectation that he would acknowledge his lack of a mandate by sticking close to the center.
Aaaargh, here it is again, that silly idea. What is the origin of this "popular expectation"? Other than the partisan Democrats of the mainstream media, among whom this idea is always popular when a Republican is president, who believes this?
Posted by: PapayaSF at October 17, 2004 12:18 AMI can fairly confidently predict that the NYT will endorse the Democratic candidate in 2008, 2012, 2016, etc. Provided that they don't endorse the Green candidate, or get bought by the likes of Rupert Murdoch or Mel Gibson.
Posted by: brian at October 17, 2004 12:28 AM"Mr. Bush came into office amid popular expectation that he would acknowledge his lack of a mandate by sticking close to the center."
Ironically, that's exactly what he did when it came to Iraq, by continuing the policies of President Clinton, who, incidentally, firmly believed that Saddam and Osama bin Laden were interconnected. Just ask...The New York Times.
Posted by: Ed Driscoll at October 17, 2004 1:31 AMNYT endorses Kerry because:
'he is more than just an alternative'
'qualities that could be the basis for a great chief executive'
'not just a modest improvement on the incumbent'
'he is blessedly willing to re-evaluate decisions'
Sheesh, talk about damning with faint praise.
Posted by: Fred Jacobsen (San Fran) at October 17, 2004 2:46 AMI see the Manhattan bureau of the Pyonggyang Press even tosses in the complaint that "the Supreme Court awarded [Bush] the presidency." Would they have been wearing the same sneer if Algore had succeeded in his plan to have the Florida supreme court award HIM the 2000 election by retroactively rewriting state election laws through a ruling the the federal justices found unconstitutional by a 7-2 vote (the vote that preceded the 5-4 decision to halt the recounts, which media-supervised inspections established Bush would have won anyway)? These people are beneath contempt, and are ready to join the Manchester Guardian in the freak-show section of the news carnival.
Posted by: Axel Kassel at October 17, 2004 8:35 AMThis strikes me as the giveaway line:
We have been impressed with Mr. Kerry's wide knowledge and clear thinking - something that became more apparent once he was reined in by that two-minute debate light.
In other words, after Kerry's 20 years in the Senate, and an army of NYT reporters following his campaign, it took three contrived appearances, during which he told us nothing new, to 'make it apparent'? High praise indeed.
The rest isn't an endorsement. It's a religious tract.
Posted by: Dave Sheridan at October 17, 2004 10:37 AMBush's actions have done more to create division among Americans. His "my way or the highway" attitude has come across very clearly in numerous of his actions.
Posted by: John at October 17, 2004 7:02 PM