John Kerry for President - NY Times!

[Cassandra]

The link for the Sunday editorial isn't up yet but it's strong and detailed (I got the paper already). For all that the Times is slimy occasionally, they wouldn't be likely to want 4 more years of Bush.
Edit: the link is now up.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/opinion/17sun1.html?oref=login
D'uh...maybe you'd like some content. :eyes:

"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."

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

1. Yes!!!

/me dances around room

[joeybee12]

2. Editorials are still good at the Times; it's their reporting that stinks

these days.

It's slanted, and here we have yet another obvious case of editorial and the day-to-day reporting/managing being at opposites.

[Cassandra]

3. The editorial page is run by Gail Collins...

a very practical woman. Funny, too.

[faithnotgreed]

5. if i remember correctly she is from cincinnati and was on cspan

a couple months ago with brian lamb. they took calls, and this hard right woman called in and told gail that basically she should be ashamed to be from cincinnati and not write only good things about president bush...

brian lamb kinda stuck up for gail and she seemed to find the caller pretty amusing
seemed like a good and rational person. thankfully there are some....

[Cha]

4. They have some conflicting

people working together at that paper.. The Good(Paul Krugman), The Bad(adam nagourney), and the Ugly(judith miller).

[Senior citizen]

6. They're just pandering, IMO.

If they endorsed the chimp, at least 75% of their readers within 50 miles of Ground Zero would cancel their subscriptions and never buy the NYT again.

Do they usually make their endorsement this late in the game?

[Cassandra]

7. If they endorsed *...

we would think they had gone insane. And yes, they usually endorse this late; sometimes later.

[AP]

8. IIRC, their (inevitable) Dem pres nomination in 2000 was incredibly luke-

warm. This one is much better. However, it's true that the editors of the NYT will always endorse the dem even while their reporting totally favors the Republican.

Just today or yesterday they ran a story on behalf of the drug industry arguing that reimportation of drugs from canada won't lower drug costs. The "logic" of the article was that you can't force retailers to charge lower prices after they buy the drugs back from Cananda. Uh, hello. The point is that consumers would be buying from CANADIAN retailers.

They also said that if there were no laws banning reimportation the drug companies would refuse to sell to canada as if that were something which were AOK. Hello, again. How about making THAT illegal!!!