They made it official; the New York Times endorses Kerry. The influential "news" organization proceeds to tell you why they support Kerry, by trashing Bush:

The race, the Times said, "is mainly about Mr. Bush's disastrous tenure."

"Nearly four years ago, after the Supreme Court awarded him the presidency, Mr. Bush came into office amid popular expectation that he would acknowledge his lack of a mandate by sticking close to the center. Instead, he turned the government over to the radical right," the paper wrote.

"The president who lost the popular vote got a real mandate on Sept. 11, 2001. With the grieving country united behind him, Mr. Bush had an unparalleled opportunity to ask for almost any shared sacrifice. The only limit was his imagination. He asked for another tax cut and the war against Iraq."

Accusing Bush of a "Nixonian obsession with secrecy, disrespect for civil liberties and inept management," the Times accused Bush of failures in the war on terrorism. "The Justice Department cannot claim one major successful terrorism prosecution," it said.

"Like the tax cuts, Mr. Bush's obsession with Saddam Hussein seemed closer to zealotry than mere policy," the editorial board said of the Iraq war. "The international outrage over the American invasion is now joined by a sense of disdain for the incompetence of the effort."

"We have specific fears about what would happen in a second Bush term," the paper added.

The paper also said that if Bush is re-elected, "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."

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

But I'm sure none of this affects the Gray Lady's ability to impartially report the news.