Fully expected: This endorsement from The New York Times: "John Kerry for President." It makes the case most of all with a dead-on indictment of the Ignoramus in Chief. But here's a pleasant surprise from a totally Republican newspaper: "Why We Cannot Endorse President Bush For Re-Election."

As stewards of the [Tampa] Tribune's editorial voice, we find it unimaginable to not be lending our voice to the chorus of conservative-leaning newspapers endorsing the president's re-election. We had fully expected to stand with Bush, whom we endorsed in 2000. ...

But we are unable to endorse President Bush for re-election because of his mishandling of the war in Iraq, his record deficit spending, his assault on open government and his failed promise to be a "uniter not a divider'' within the United States and the world.

It's less surprising that Kerry failed to get their endorsement either — Tampa's mugwumps decided to sit this one out — and no surprise that the Ignoramus in Chief won endorsements from the Chicago Tribune, Rocky Mountain News in Denver, the Arizona Republic in Phoenix, and the Dallas Morning News.

Here's the Associated Press's comprehensive list of endorsements from dailies large and small across the country: 19 for Kerry, 15 for Bush.

Postscript: The Washington Post has yet to declare its choice, but judging from today's lead editorial on civil liberties and terrorism it's leaning toward Kerry. The Los Angeles Times has not endorsed a presidential candidate in more than three decades. This year it may break tradition, but so far tradition holds. Today its lead editorial gives Kerry a lukewarm edge on energy policy.