NYTs Endorsements

The Times Editorial board came out with their endorsements for the Republican and Democratic presidential races today.

The winners? Here they are, with a summary on why they chose these two candidates.

Republican Party:

John McCain

-advocate for for battling global warming

-risked his presidential bid to uphold fundamental American values in the immigration debate

-genuine war hero

-critical of Bush and Rumsfeld in management of war

-opposes torture

-has character to stand on principle

Why not Guiliani, their once proud Mayor of New York?
-narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man

-saw no need to limit police power
-arrogance and bad judgment are breathtaking

-ran through surpluses, bequeathed huge deficits to his successor

-nominated Bernard Kerik Police Commissioner, who has now been indicted on fraud and corruption charges

Romney....forgettaboutit. As Ben Stein said on Larry Kudlow's show tonight, "he is not a flip-flopper. A flip-flopper changes his stand on certain priciples that he once believed in. Romney has no principles."

Democratic Party:

Hillary Clinton

-major issues, no real gulf separating the Hillary and Obama

-promise end to war in Iraq, more equitable taxation, more effective government spending, more concern for social issues, a restoration of civil liberties and an end to the politics of division of George W. Bush and Karl Rove

-potential upside of Obama presidency is enticing, but next president needs to start immediately on challenges that will require concrete solutions, resolve, and the ability to make government work

-Mrs. Clinton is more qualified, right now, to be president.

-Regarding Obama, more specifics are needed to go with his amorphous promise of a new governing majority- a clearer sense of how he would govern.

So, bottom line...they are choosing the most liberal (or perceived liberal) on the Republican side and they are going with experience rather than flash on the Democratic side.