Endorsement Shocker: 'The Economist' Endorses Kerry

Published on October 28, 2004 By blogic In Politics

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 1)

Daiwa

on Oct 28, 2004

Whatever.

Cheers,
Daiwa

blogic

on Oct 28, 2004

Congrats on the Red Sox.

I wonder how many of these surprising endorsement will happen before Bush supporters admit that it's unusual. Do they have some alternate way of explaining how this year is different than every other year?

I understand partisan loyalty, but I wonder if there will be a point when Bush supporters look back, and see that Bush governed badly. I mean, are there still people saying Nixon was ethical? Or that Kennedy was chaste?

drmiler

on Oct 28, 2004

Reply #2 By: blogic - 10/28/2004 4:31:03 PM

I understand partisan loyalty, but I wonder if there will be a point when Bush supporters look back, and see that Bush governed badly. I mean, are there still people saying Nixon was ethical? Or that Kennedy was chaste?

Maybe. But NOT in your lifetime or mine!

dabe

on Oct 28, 2004

"Maybe. But NOT in your lifetime or mine!"

Wake up and smell the roses, drmiler. They are already seeing Bush as a failure. There are sites devoted to republicans who are disheartened by his lunacy. Even some of his own administration are saying things that contradict his contention that everything is rosey and that he makes no mistakes. Some examples, as articulated in this article:

Republicans for Kerry (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/actnow?bid=4)

One of the many strange hallmarks of Election 2004 is the numerous Republican groups which have formed to organize support for Democrat John Kerry's campaign. There are also, of course, "Bush Democrats" around, but they're far less organized, and if my colleague Patrick Mulvaney's crawl around the internet is any indication, far fewer in number than their counterparts.
President Bush's extremist agenda, his Administration's skyrocketing budget deficits and his dishonesty in the run-up to war are the main reasons cited by longtime Republican voters for abandoning their party's nominee. The choice is simple to voters like Mitch Dworkin, who explains in an article on the Republicans for Kerry 2004 site that, "Bush and most of his Administration represent an extreme faction of the Republican Party and are out of touch with the American people."

There are numerous groups and organizations to check out to get a sense of the unusual number of Republican and conservative groups opposing President Bush in the upcoming election:

Republicans for Kerry http://www.republicansforkerry.org

Another Republican for Kerry

Republicans Against Bush http://republicansagainstbush.info/

Republican Switchers http://inprogress.typepad.com/republicanswitchers/

Republicans 4 Kerry http://www.republicans4kerry.us/

Conservatives for Kerry http://conservativesforkerry.com/conspeakout.html

There are also several less formal, web-based groups comprised of Republicans opposing the Bush re-election effort, including the "Republicans Against Bush" Meetup and an AOL journal called "Republicans for the ouster of King George II." And even the Log Cabin Republicans, which notes on its website that "every victory for a fair- minded Republican is a victory for the future of [the Republican] Party," have pointedly chosen not to endorse Bush's re-election bid.

It's unclear what effect these typically GOP voters will have on the race's electoral math but it's clear that Bush is the most unpopular Republican nominee in memory among members of his own party.

drmiler

on Oct 28, 2004

Reply #4 By: dabe - 10/28/2004 6:16:17 PM
"Maybe. But NOT in your lifetime or mine!"

Wake up and smell the roses, drmiler. They are already seeing Bush as a failure. There are sites devoted to republicans who are disheartened by his lunacy. Even some of his own administration are saying things that contradict his contention that everything is rosey and that he makes no mistakes. Some examples, as articulated in this article:

I've said this before and I'll say it again. Please pull your head out of your butt! He said Bush *supporters, NOT republicans! You don't have to be a republican to support Bush!

RedneckHunter

on Oct 28, 2004

as I always say:
The only Good Bush is a Shaved Bush. For those that want to drag God into it, a Burning Bush.

Daiwa

on Oct 28, 2004

There's a simple explanation, blogic.

I don't give a rip what the Economist thinks or who they endorse, nor do I care who the Guardian, the Brisbane Courier, Paris Match, the Berlin Daily, the Delhi Times or any other foreign birdcage liner chooses to endorse. I don;t much give a rip who the Arizona Republic endorses, though they surprised a lot of people when they endorsed Bush.

I can make up my mind for myself, without the guidance of media snobs whose opinions will be swimming in birdshit tomorrow morning. If you ask me, those foreign endorsements are of no use to Kerry and could actually hurt him. I don't want our press endorsing candidates in French, German, British or any other foreing elections, so let them take care of their own business while we take care of ours.

Cheers,
Daiwa

sandy2

on Oct 28, 2004

I actually saw this endorsement coming. I am an adament supporter of the Economist, and of course of Kerry too.

blogic

on Oct 29, 2004

Daiwa, thanks for your comment,

The Economist is probably the most widely respected news weekly in the world, has a larger American readership than its British one, and probably covers the US more than it covers any other country. It also almost invariably supporters Republicans.

I was never questioning your ability to make decisions for yourself. I was bringing to my readers attention that yet another typically pro-Republican voice had acknowledged Bush's incompetence, and endorsed the election of Kerry.

T_Bone4Justice

on Oct 29, 2004

RedneckHunter: "The only Good Bush is a Shaved Bush. For those that want to drag God into it, a Burning Bush."

Hahahaha! That's pretty funny. It reminds me of an anti-war protestor's sign I saw while I happened to be in London which read "The only Bush I trust is my own..." and the poster depicted a large mass of hair and....well, you get the idea!

Hang in there blogic...

Deference

on Oct 29, 2004

Yep, shrug off those endorsements guys, just like all the other red flags been waved trying to warn and inform Americans of the doo - doo from this White House...

sunwukong

on Oct 29, 2004

The Economist has an interesting set of articles covering the election: Link

Though I'm not always in agreement with them, one of the reasons they're one of the few news journals that I'll read is that they're at least competent at exposition and are willing to take the time and effort to provide the details and basis for their thesis.

dabe

on Oct 30, 2004

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.

drmiler

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..

Draginol

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

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!