New York Times endorses Kerry.

I promise I won't hang you out of a window by your heels when you get to the Netherlands, JW.

This is nothing more than 2-pages of anti-Bush propaganda. Hardly worth the advertising Frank has been doing in so many threads.

Let's look at the lies...

Quote:

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,

Quote:

John Ashcroft, a favorite of the far right with a history of insensitivity to civil liberties,

Quote:

He moved quickly to implement a far-reaching anti-choice agenda including censorship of government Web sites and a clampdown on embryonic stem cell research.

Quote:

He also made tax cuts a higher priority than doing what was needed for America's security;

Quote:

a Nixonian obsession with secrecy, disrespect for civil liberties and inept management.

Quote:

Mr. Ashcroft appeared on TV time and again to announce sensational arrests of people who turned out to be either innocent, harmless braggarts or extremely low-level sympathizers of Osama bin Laden who, while perhaps wishing to do something terrible, lacked the means.

Quote:

Like the tax cuts, Mr. Bush's obsession with Saddam Hussein seemed closer to zealotry than mere policy.

Quote:

If he wins re-election, domestic and foreign financial markets will know the fiscal recklessness will continue. Along with record trade imbalances, that increases the chances of a financial crisis, like an uncontrolled decline of the dollar, and higher long-term interest rates.

Quote:

The Bush White House has always given us the worst aspects of the American right without any of the advantages. We get the radical goals but not the efficient management

Quote:

the administration has managed to so strain the resources of our armed forces that the nation is unprepared to respond to a crisis anywhere else in the world.

Quote:

Mr. Kerry has the capacity to do far, far better.

These are just the lies. 99% of the rest of this article stretches the truth to the point of being comical. This whole opinion peice is about as truthful as a $2 whore on payday.

At the moment though, I'm concerned about Phoenix and O'Bill. I predict that if they don't shift from undecided to Kerry, Bush will win.

Daily Endorsement Tally: Kerry Picks up 28 Papers, Owns Huge Lead

By Greg Mitchell
Published: October 17, 2004

NEW YORK Senator John Kerry picked up a raft of newspaper endorsements on Sunday, widening his lead over President George W. Bush in this area.

Kerry gained the editorial backing of at least 28 papers, with Bush winning the support of 14 that we know of, giving Kerry the lead by 43-27 in E&P's exclusive tally. He has many more large papers on his side, maintaining his "circulation edge" at nearly 3-1: approximately 8.5 million to 3 million (we will post a complete tally later today).

However, Bush did pick up the endorsement of the Chicago Tribune, Arizona Republic, the Denver Rocky Mountain News, the Indianapolis Star and The Dallas Morning News.

Among Kerry's new supporters were five papers that had backed Bush in 2000: the Bradenton Herald in Florida, the Daily Camera in Boulder, Colorado, the Columbia Tribune in Missouri, Colorado and the Daily-Herald in Arlington Heights, Ill., and Muskegon (MI) Chronicle.

Two other papers that backed Bush in 2000 announced they would not pick either candidate this year: the Tampa Tribune and the Winston-Salem (NC) Journal.

Among the papers endorsing Kerry today were newspapers in key swing states: The Miami Herald, St. Petersburg Times, Palm Beach Post, Daytona Beach News Journal and Bradenton Herald in Florida; the Minneapolis Star-Tribune in Minnesota; the Daily Camera in Colorado, the Dayton Daily News and Akron Beacon-Journal in Ohio, and Duluth (Minn.) News-Tribune.

He also got the nod from major papers in states already friendly to him: The New York Times, The Boston Globe, San Jose Mercury-News, San Francisco Chronicle, Sacramento Bee, Fresno Bee and Modesto Bee.

Other papers backing him were the Kansas City Star, the Roanoke (Va.) Times, the Grand Fords (ND) Herald, Charlotte Observer, the Lexington (Ky.) Herald-Leader, the Mail-Tribune in Medford, Oregon, and the Press-Democrat in Santa Rosa, CA. Clearly, many papers in the Knight Ridder and McClatchy chains have rallied to his side.

Besides the big city papers already mentioned, Bush won the Omaha World-Herald, The Freelance-Star in Fredericksburg, Va., the York (PA) Daily Record, The Repository in Canton, Ohio, The Times-Republic in New Philadelphia, Ohio, the New York Sun, the El Paso Times and Las Cruces Sun in Texas, and the News-Gazette in Champaign-Urbana, Ill.

Many of the editorials backing Kerry denounced the incumbent in unusually harsh language. The Miami Herald accused Bush of "narrow partisanship." Up the coast, the Daytona paper cited his "embarrassing performance." The Sacramento Bee said, "The nation has paid a steep price for Bush's arrogance - mounting deficits and debt at home, loss of standing and effectiveness abroad...." For The New York Times, his presidency has simply been "disastrous."

In supporting Bush, The Indianapolis Star nevertheless called both candidates "unsatisfying" and The Chicago Tribune, in backing Bush, also seemed a bit torn: "There is much the current president could have done differently over the last four years. There are lessons he needs to have learned. And there are reasons--apart from the global perils likely to dominate the next presidency--to recommend either of these two good candidates."

The Dallas Morning News was more enthusiastic, however, declaring: "Americans want and need a president with a backbone steeled by courage and a heart tendered by compassion." The editors said they were "disappointed" by his failure to rein in domestic spending, the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq, and strained relationships abroad. But "this is not the time for America to go wobbly," they added. "This is not the time for Americans to abandon their president."

But the Tampa Tribune, which has long backed Republicans, declared that it found itself in "a position unimaginable four years ago" when it "strongly endorsed" the president. While it has no deep affection for Kerry it expressed disappointment in Bush, and so it would "not be lending our voice to the chorus of conservative-leaning newspapers endorsing the president's re-election....But we are unable to endorse President Bush for re- election because of his mishandling of the war in Iraq, his record deficit spending, his assault on open government and his failed promise to be a 'uniter not a divider' within the United States and the world."