The NY Times has endorsed John Kerry for prez (surprise!), writing:
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.
More important, sez the Gray Lady, Bush has really stunk up the joint by appointing John Ashcroft attorney general, pushing a series of right-wing nutbags into the federal judiciary, starting an unncessary war, etc. I won't be voting for Bush anyway, but I'm not convinced by the Times' bill of particulars against Bush (for instance, they pillory him for cutting taxes during a recession and assert without evidence that a Kerry win would be better for financial markets). Still, the paper does lay out a comprehensive case.
Where they go haywire is in their praise of Kerry: "Mr. Kerry has an aggressive and in some cases innovative package of ideas about energy, aimed at addressing global warming and oil dependency." And, needless to say, they're quiet on their contribution to the whole WMD story that helped create support for the war in Iraq, pretending that 'twas simply the Bushies who snookered the American people.
Whole thing here.
Reason endorsed a dreamboat candidate for president back in April, knowing full well we'll end up with a dud. Huggable posters of both are online here.