« The 10 Spot - Photo Link Edition | Main | History may not repeat itself, but it occasionally stutters »

The Suspense Was Killing Us

Shockingly The New York Times endorses John Kerry for President

If you read the whole column you get the distinct impression that you're reading an anti-Bush thread at DU, though that might be a disservice to the few intelligible posters there. The column is unsigned but it positively reeks of Maureen Dowd which should give you advance warning as to the content. Once The Times has enumerated their litany of Bush evils, without spending much time on Kerry positives, they come to this remarkable (if predictable) conclusion:

Voting for president is a leap of faith. A candidate can explain his positions in minute detail and wind up governing with a hostile Congress that refuses to let him deliver. A disaster can upend the best-laid plans. All citizens can do is mix guesswork and hope, examining what the candidates have done in the past, their apparent priorities and their general character. It's on those three grounds that we enthusiastically endorse John Kerry for president.
I was struck by their three reasons to endorse Kerry.
  • examining what the candidates have done in the past - The Kerry resume is not exactly where I'd look to first in making the case for Kerry...
  • their apparent priorities - Again an area many have struggled to understand about Kerry; just what exactly his priorities are...
  • and their general character - Yet again another area in which Kerry comes up short. Calling your brothers in arms war criminals, have a Q rating somewhere below Mussolini, being generally untrusted or disliked, etc...
If those were the only three criteria to consider in the choice for President, Kerry would be looking at a defeat on the order of Mondale or McGovern...

Update: The Carnivorous Conservative has more on the equally unsurprising Boston Globe endorsement.

Update 2: Thanks to Michele for counting anti-Bush paragraphs (20) and pro Kerry paragraphs (3). You'll notice in the anti-Bush section the Times editors manage to invoke Godwin's Law, for good measure.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Suspense Was Killing Us:

» Carnivorous Conservative linked with The Real NYT's Endorsement - Bush Really Sucks

» A Small Victory linked with NYT Channels DU

» Overtaken by Events linked with Flabbergasted!!

» Sortapundit linked with New York Times Endorses Kerry

» Read My Lips linked with sarcasmMy jaw is agape in amazement!/sarcasm

» Pavel Bloviates linked with The NYT Endorses Anyone but Bush for Prez

» The American Mind linked with Endorsement Time

Comments (21)

Just FYI - You're linked to... (Below threshold)

Just FYI - You're linked to page 2 of the endorsement.

It is kind of Ironic there ... (Below threshold)

It is kind of Ironic there "reasons" for endorsing kerry. More funny then anything. I wonder how many people would have passed away for shock if they would have endorsed W.

Thanks Dan - fixed.... (Below threshold)

Thanks Dan - fixed.

This is news? NYT is as clo... (Below threshold)

This is news? NYT is as close to truth telling as Leon Spinks is to teeth.

I was always under the impr... (Below threshold)

I was always under the impression that newspapers and tv mass media was supposed to be neutral; that they were supposed to report the news, openly and fairly, and pass on the information so that people could make the best decision possible - irregardless. Of course I have learned that is not the case BUT it should be. I think it is up to US, citizens whom they are making money off of, to make sure mass media of any sort is fair and balanced. Do you remember when they used to have editorials? "This does not always mean it's the opinion of this station or this paper?" Why can't it be like that again and how did we allow these people to take over our minds and opinions? I think it's up to us to put an end to it altogether...... it's that simple.

This just makes me sick; they all make me sick.

It's also a wee bit strange... (Below threshold)

It's also a wee bit strange that if a president were to be elected based on their three criteria, where they actually put Kerry down on, but no reason why they are endorcing him. Does that make any sense to anybody?

My apologies for link whori... (Below threshold)

My apologies for link whoring, Kevin. But if you want to read the "real" NYT endorsement next, it's here!

"The Kerry resume is not ex... (Below threshold)

"The Kerry resume is not exactly where I'd look to first in making the case for Kerry..."

Please enumerate the items on Kerry's resume that you think make him unqualified for presidency.

Also, please enumerate the items on W's resume that you think make him qualified (i.e. his failed business ventures, his alcoholism till he was 40, everything).

Wow, the New York Slimes en... (Below threshold)

Wow, the New York Slimes endorsed Bush. I'm shocked! I gotta lay down!

WOW- I just read the whole ... (Below threshold)

WOW- I just read the whole thong.


When you said it read like a DU thread, I had no idea how serious you were.


Oleg, try this on for size:... (Below threshold)

Oleg, try this on for size: Kerry is unqualified because he's a freaking traitor who's worked against the interests of the USA since 1966; he's a liar surpassing even Slick Willie in his deceits; he's a sociopath who possesses no shame; he's an empty-suit with absolutely no record of achievement except for his fabricated experiences in Vietnam.

Also Oleg, shame on you for bringing up Bush's alcoholism. Alcoholism is a disease and his recovery attests to his tremendous victory over a horrible disease. This is evidence that Liberal-Democrats are willing to do or say anything to get votes and gain power. Have you ever heard the GOP tell the American people that Max Cleland's Vietnam wounds were self-inflicted? They were, you know. He was apparently a bit tipsy and was playing around with a grenade when it went off. He was far from any battlefield at the time. Did any member of the GOP make an issue of that when the Dems say Cleland was seriously wounded on the battlefield? No.

I find it interesting that ... (Below threshold)
Mike Lee:

I find it interesting that the NYTimes says the following as to why they are supporting Mr. Kerry

"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." (caps my addition)....

But then in the 17 paragraphs of content about WHY you should support their choice for President... only 3 paragraphs say anything about what Kerry would do or even why you should vote for him.

The rest (14 paragraphs) are basically a discussion on why the Bush team has been terrible the past 4 years.

The person / NYT editior who wrote this (no name listed of course) really should have called the title to this article "Why we hate Bush (and even more John Ascroft)"... rather than an endorsement for Kerry.

My question is if they really believed that they liked the qualities of "John Kerry"... then why wasn't that the discussion of the article? Could it be that theres not that much known about him that the NYT and a normal undecided voter could find as realistic reasons to vote for Kerry?

Now, now Jim, be fair. Kerr... (Below threshold)

Now, now Jim, be fair. Kerry has been a senator for 20 years. Okay, in that 20 years, he's managed to accomplish,,, uhh...

(if you're a Brit, the appropriate phrase is 'f***-all')

The twists and turn of this... (Below threshold)
The Shado doesn't know:

The twists and turn of this election cycle continue to astound me!
Why, next thing you'll tell me is that the Brady Bunch will endorse that 'hunter, gun owner and sportsman who supports the 2nd Amendment'
... oh wait Kitchen sink
(if I acknowledge that I'm an unrepentant link whore but still apologize for letting that side of my nature out, do I get half credit?)

firstbrokenangel... (Below threshold)

"Do you remember when they used to have editorials? "This does not always mean it's the opinion of this station or this paper?" Why can't it be like that again and how did we allow these people to take over our minds and opinions?"

Now, now... some of them still say something sort of like that, only now it's "doesn't necessarily reflect the opinion..." also known as "insert wiggle room here"
Too, they can control some of the spin on the information you get, but they only wish they could control your opinion.
Things have already started changing, at least as far as the MSM getting away with their practices. Remember, it was the bloggers who deconstructed Rather.

"I think it's up to us to put an end to it altogether...... it's that simple."

It's a process, but it is under way.

Bad link to Democratic Unde... (Below threshold)

Bad link to Democratic Underground - misspelled "undergound"

Jim -- I can say the same e... (Below threshold)

Jim -- I can say the same exact things about Bush.

My point is that I don't think either of them is qualified.

However, I truly believe that if most people are worse off compared to the beginning of Bush's presidency, he deserves to go. His policies, his ideas, his wars, whatever did not work for me personally. That is why I am voting him out of the office.

Now, like I said before on this site, if republicans did not renominate Bush and instead nominated Guilliani or Pataki, I would vote for a Republican.

Dudes, I am an independent that usually votes in the center.

I roared with laughter when... (Below threshold)

I roared with laughter when I read this:

"All citizens can do is mix guesswork and hope . . . we enthusiastically endorse John Kerry for president."

Votes in the center of what... (Below threshold)

Votes in the center of what?

Oleg:Drink another... (Below threshold)


Drink another glass of Kool-Aid.

Eat a bullet, jackass.

Now, now Recon...no need to... (Below threshold)

Now, now Recon...no need to be rude even if Oleg doesn't have any actual facts at hand. You give her cause for being a "bush-hater". \
Oleg....your reasons for not voting for either candidate are an age old cop-out. You state John Kerry has 20 yrs. in the Senate....but honestly go look at his record...he has accomplished NOTHING! What makes you think he cares about the American people if he has no record. If he cared that deeply he would have actually worked to GET SOMETHING DONE. Mr.Bush DOES have integrity as he as done what he said he would do...even if you don't agree with his policies, you have to admit that he does what he says through ACTION. John
Kerry blows which ever way he thinks might get him the most votes. NEVER A PLAN ....just a promise of "I Have a Plan"...speech.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy