The NYTimes endorses Kerry, with some long-overdue harsh words for the incumbent. They admit 'there is no denying that this race is mainly about Mr. Bush's disastrous tenure', something that would have come better from a paper who had been more assertive at, oh, I don't know, reporting on the disastrousness as it was happening... They partially redeem themselves for dereliction of duty with this:
We look back on the past four years with hearts nearly breaking, both for the lives unnecessarily lost and for the opportunities so casually wasted. Time and again, history invited George W. Bush to play a heroic role, and time and again he chose the wrong course. We believe that with John Kerry as president, the nation will do better.
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.
See also Suskind's lengthy NYTimes Magazine article on Bush's appalling thought processes here. Includes this anecdote:
''I don't know why you're talking about Sweden,'' Bush said. ''They're the neutral one. They don't have an army.''
Lantos paused, a little shocked, and offered a gentlemanly reply: ''Mr. President, you may have thought that I said Switzerland. They're the ones that are historically neutral, without an army.'' Then Lantos mentioned, in a gracious aside, that the Swiss do have a tough national guard to protect the country in the event of invasion.
Bush held to his view. ''No, no, it's Sweden that has no army.''
The room went silent, until someone changed the subject.
Apparently a staffer later filled him in on the difference between Sweden and Switzerland...
Expect to see liberal bloggers embracing their position as part of the 'reality-based community'.
Today's NYT also has a business article about Sinclair, and why their ongoing Bush-suckup is probably a no-win situation, from a business standpoint. In a nutshell, if Bush is re-elected, it will be hard for him to press for further media deregulation without it being characterized as the 'Sinclair-Payoff Bill', and if Kerry is elected, they're screwed.