"It was a difficult call, given that we endorsed George Bush in 2000 and supported the war in Iraq,'' Economist editor Bill Emmott, who wrote the editorial backing Kerry, said in a pre- publication e-mail. ``In the end we felt he has been too incompetent to deserve re-election."
The magazine said Bush's credibility had been undermined by events at Guantanamo Bay, what it called the "sheer incompetence and hubristic thinking'' evident in the handling of postwar Iraq, and the prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad.
"America needs a president capable of admitting to mistakes, and of learning from them,'' Emmott wrote. ``Mr. Bush has steadfastly refused to admit to anything.''
This whole article is so dishonest.
Calling the Economist conservative is lke calling Harvard conservative.
Let's go back in time for a second: When the Spanish PM lost the election this was the cover of The Economist:
Sun - have you actually read the Economist? It's not even a close call.
Respected weeklies have their own point of view. Newsweek and Time are liberal. US News and World Report are conservative. Not by a lot but it's there.
The title of this post "Endorsement Shocker" is, frankly, a lie. There's nothing "shocking" about the endorsement. I think the cover I displayed earlier from a year ago makes that pretty clear.