The New York Times on Saturday endorsed President Obama's reelection bid, arguing in a lengthy op-ed that he offered far superior policies to Mitt Romney on virtually every important issue.

Yet the paper not only endorsed Obama over his Republican challenger, but took every opportunity to denounce Romney's policies—and those of the Republican Party in general—as being backward, misguided and dangerous.

"Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, has gotten this far with a guile that allows him to say whatever he thinks an audience wants to hear," the op-ed reads. "But he has tied himself to the ultraconservative forces that control the Republican Party and embraced their policies, including reckless budget cuts and 30-year-old, discredited trickle-down ideas."

"Voters may still be confused about Mr. Romney’s true identity, but they know the Republican Party, and a Romney administration would reflect its agenda," it continues.

Throughout the op-ed, the paper used President Obama's achievements as a foil to attack the Romney alternative. In a section on health care, for example, the paper offered high praise for the Affordable Care Act, and credited Obama with making welcome changes to the system overall. After heaping praise on the president, that section closes with a blunt denunciation of Romney's policy proposals.

"Mr. Romney has no plan for covering the uninsured beyond his callous assumption that they will use emergency rooms," the op-ed reads.

On the economy, the paper acknowledged the slow pace of the recovery, but chalked that up to the depth of the economic hole Obama inherited upon taking office. After extolling Obama's economic stewardship, the paper pivoted to slam Romney's counter proposals as "regressive, relying on big tax cuts and deregulation."

The Times' endorsement is not altogether surprising given the paper's history of favoring Democratic presidential candidates. The paper hasn't endorsed a Republican for the nation's highest office since 1956, when it supported Dwight Eisenhower's reelection. And since 1900, the Times has only backed the Republican candidate six times.