I know this will come as a surprise to exactly none of you, but today's New York Times editorial page comes out in support of Sen. John Kerry for president.

As should be expected, the editorial isn't really an endorsement of Kerry, but instead is a long list of grievances against President Bush.

The editorial is really standard loony left boilerplate, just barely above the level of discourse of Democratic Underground and Daily Kos, with the old Supreme Court picked him Bolshevik Storytelling.

There were two things I wanted to make note of in the editorial which I wanted to make special note of, one pertaining to Bush and one to Kerry.

He moved quickly to implement a far-reaching anti-choice agenda including censorship of government Web sites and a clampdown on embryonic stem cell research.

Only from adherents to the liberal belief that a reduction in the rate of increase is a "cut" can Bush's decision to allow limited funding of embryonic stem cell research (up from none) be a "clampdown." I would suggest that this would be an error requiring a formal correction, but we know that's not going to happen.

Then there's the Times assessment of Sen. John Kerry.

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.

Funny, I think I remember the New York Times ran a transcript of that second debate in which John Kerry famously uttered the following words:

Well, let me tell you, straight up, I've never changed my mind about Iraq.

The Times highlights Kerry's flip-flopping nature in its endorsement, when the candidate has gone through so much effort to promote his constancy.