News-Record.com

The Denver Post has endorsed George W. Bush for president. This is not surprising. What is surprising is the language of the endorsement editorial:

Typically, in the case of an incumbent, our endorsement calculation would begin this way: Are we, as Coloradans, better off today than we were four years ago?

In a word, no. Since 2001, Colorado has lost more jobs than we've gained, and the ones we've gained pay less than the ones we've lost. We pay less in taxes, but our household and medical expenses have skyrocketed. Ninety thousand of us have lost our health coverage. Washington is ringing up record deficits and sticking the next generation with the bill. In Iraq, Colorado-based military units and reserves are deployed in a hostile environment for questionable purpose and uncertain result. ...

It's no secret that we part company with the president over many issues. Two glaring sore spots are his obsession to cut taxes even while piling up record deficits, and his mishandling of all things Iraq. He squandered global good will by taking a "my way or the highway" approach to matters of global warming, international law, Iraq weapons inspections and ultimately the Iraq invasion. He bows to corporate preference in matters of energy and environment, and his education funding levels leave far too many children behind.

Kerry has infused the 2004 campaign with energy and gumption, offering fresh ideas on health care and sensible plans for our tax structure. His are the superior proposals on environmental protection, on stem-cell research and judicial nominations. Sure, we've seen Kerry bend to the political winds over his long career, but we wouldn't mind one bit if more Washington politicians would reconsider their past judgments and ideological certainties. Kerry's growth on the campaign trail gives a glimpse of his potential. ...

The president sent U.S. forces into Iraq 18 months ago to oust Saddam Hussein, but with no plan to handle any subsequent resistance. Vice President Dick Cheney said Iraqis would greet the invasion force as liberators, quite a miscalculation, and there was no Plan B. Coalition forces have been unable to defend Iraqi oil assets from insurgent sabotage. It's hard to believe the United States could have done a worse job planning for a new Iraq. ...

I'm cherry-picking, of course. But even in context, this is not the kind of language one expects to see about Candidate X in an editorial endorsing Candidate X. I'm not saying an endorsement should omit all negative description of the endorsee (or any positive description of the opponent, for that matter), but this editorial seems especially conflicted when one considers that voters are being given the clearest distinction between the two major-party candidates since the Reagan-Mondale contest of 1984.

Guys, if you're going to endorse somebody, endorse him. Otherwise, you're wasting your readers' time.

UPDATE: Wow. Looks like Denver agrees with me. The Post reports that it received more than 700 responses to this editorial and adds, "Every letter we received was critical."