10/17/2004 05:43:57 PM|||Nathan Moore|||

NewsMax.com points out another example of unequal coverage by the New York Times. Check it out:

The openly liberal New York Times this past week ran a har-dee-har story on Page One, of all places, about the endorsement of John Kerry by a tiny weekly in Crawford, Texas.

Question: Why didn't the Times raise such a fuss when Kerry's much larger former hometown daily, the Lowell (Mass.) Sun, endorsed President Bush's re-election?

Oh, right: The Times makes Dan Rather look fair and balanced.

Here are excerpts of the Lowell Sun's editorial:

"In the ashes of ground zero, where nearly 3,000 innocent Americans perished, President Bush vowed to find the perpetrators, in domestic cells and distant lands, and bring them to justice. He said he will do all that is humanly possible and necessary to make certain that terrorists never strike again on U.S. soil.

"Can anyone deny that President Bush has not delivered? America the terrorists' No. 1 target has recovered from its tragic wounds and rebounded. It remains safe to this day.

"What might a lesser leader have done, faced with the daunting task of deciding America's course against withering, partisan attacks from Democrats, media propagandists, disingenuous U.N. officials and disloyal White House operatives selling their souls for profit during a time of war?

"A lesser leader might have caved in. President Bush has stood his ground. ...

"John Kerry, on the other hand, has all the attributes of the shape of water when it comes to telling us what he believes and what he'd do for America. Like incoming and outgoing tides, Kerry is content to go with the flow. In a dangerous world infested with sharks, Kerry would be chum at America's expense."

|||109805321782964815|||Kerry's Hometown Didn't Endorse Him Either