Breaking Political Stories and Commentary. "We're at the height of the Roman Empire for the Republican Party, but the tide slowly but surely goes out." --Republican US Senator Lindsey Graham, South Carolina
Just when you think it can't get more surprising when it comes to endorsing Kerry, The Economist has come out for him. The Economist has a long history of articles that are intelligent and balanced until the final few paragraphs, at which point they almost invariably weigh in on the side of the Republicans (when talking about American politics). As I've said, the most serious problem with Bush isn't his policies, it's his incompetence. The Economist agrees.

Here's the money quote, from Bloomberg News:
"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.''

Comments (Page 2)
on Oct 30, 2004
Reply #15 By: dabe - 10/30/2004 10:02:18 AM
drmiler, I raised those sites, because they were PREDOMINANTLY Dubya supporters in 2000. Hello................ Maybe "republicans" specifically weren't mentioned here originally, but mentioning them now sure is a good starting point. Not too many democrats supported dubya in 2000, nor do they support him now. Some do, but not very many.

ITime to get your own head out of your own friggin' ass, drmiler.


You first, young one..
on Oct 30, 2004

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:

http://g2007.com/blog/gary/archives/000063.html

 

on Oct 30, 2004

Reply #15 By: dabe - 10/30/2004 10:02:18 AM
drmiler, I raised those sites, because they were PREDOMINANTLY Dubya supporters in 2000. Hello................ Maybe "republicans" specifically weren't mentioned here originally, but mentioning them now sure is a good starting point. Not too many democrats supported dubya in 2000, nor do they support him now. Some do, but not very many.

ITime to get your own head out of your own friggin' ass, drmiler.


You need to think before you talk. How can a site whose name is "Republicans for Kerry http://www.republicansforkerry.org" been a "PREDOMINANTLY Dubya supporter" in 2000? Nobody even knew that Kerry would run at that time. Oh and BTW don't cry to hard if your boy Kerry don't make it on the 2nd.
on Oct 30, 2004
Calling the Economist conservative is lke calling Harvard conservative.


I find this pretty disingenuous -- everybody who doesn't agree isn't "conservative".
on Oct 30, 2004

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.

on Oct 30, 2004
I think the cover I displayed earlier from a year ago makes that pretty clear.


Actually, not at all. The Economist's position has always been that it would be a shame if the leaders depicted on that cover (Bush, Blair, Howard and Aznar) lost their governments solely due to their support for the Iraq war. It has followed the popularity of that policy choice in their respective countries and it was speculating if this would indeed be the pattern of fallout. With respect to Iraq, the Economist has always supported the decision to go in (with some intellectual dishonesty, IMHO) but it has never shied away from presenting the dissenting opinion.
on Oct 30, 2004
Sun - have you actually read the Economist? It's not even a close call.


I used to be a subscriber (couldn't really afford to continue timewise) and have been a semi-regular reader otherwise -- a regular one online.

In the spectrum of journals I read, it belongs mostly on the conservative side of things -- roughly on the same plane as Forbes and to the right of Fortune or Business Week.
on Nov 01, 2004
Having subscribed to the The Economist for a couple of years, of course it's conservative on most issues (except for social ones, since Europe, including Britain, is more socially liberal than America). It's also hawkish on foreign policy.

The reason they endorsed Kerry is not because they disagreed with the war -- they supported it strongly -- but because they think Bush is incompetent.

As sunwukong points out, The Economist cover displayed a few comments above isn't at all anti-war, it's a statement of fact that people around the world intepreted the result of the Spanish election to be a vote against war. American conservatives consistently saw it that way, and berated the Spanish people for it.

It is a shock that The Economist endorsed Kerry, and it's a testament to how stunningly incompetent George Bush is.
Meta
Views
» 1618
Comments
» 23
Category
Sponsored Links