Forgot your password?
Politics Government

Economist Endorses Kerry, Reluctantly 143

Posted by michael
from the throw-caution-to-the-wind dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The Economist has picked John Kerry as its preferred presidential candidate, over George W. Bush. Though a British publication, the magazine points out that almost half of its readers are based in the U.S. The Economist leans right on trade issues and supported going to war in Iraq, but has been critical on Bush's policies on tax cuts and the deficit."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Economist Endorses Kerry, Reluctantly

Comments Filter:
  • Endorsements? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Black Parrot (19622) on Friday October 29, 2004 @09:43AM (#10662470)

    I've heard a lot of newspaper endorsements both ways this time around. Does anyone know how much effect endorsements actually have on vote counts?

  • Kerry Republicans (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Alomex (148003) on Friday October 29, 2004 @11:00AM (#10663076) Homepage
    This is yet another case of a Kerry republican. In all, there have been over two dozen publications which endorsed Bush for president in 2000 and this time around are behind Kerry. In contrast, half a dozen newspapers have gone the opposite way, that is, from endorsing Gore in 2000 to endorsing Bush in 2004.

    I believe history won't be kind on the 43rd president of the USA. He had the support of the entire world post-9/11, plus the largest fiscal surplus ever and he blew away both of them in less than three years.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 29, 2004 @11:19AM (#10663239)
    You are another example of a Republican who turned into a communist once in power.

    I think the touchstone of TRUE conservatism is emboddied in the Boy Scout's policy on camp ground cleanup: Always leave the place better than when you came. That means, that if you want to pull off a big operation like such as invading a random country while you are already have your hands full in a war on terror, you pay for it. You don't leave your dirty dishes in the sink for the next guy to wash. The fact is, you can claim that Kerry would make a bigger mess, but at the end, no one can leave behind as much a mess as W has.

    As far as your comments about the deficit being less than GDB growth, that makes no sense unless you plan in the future to confiscate all the GDP growth to pay for government expenses. I prefer a plan that allows for a future that is continually getting more and more prosperous; I say we should pay for what we spend NOW, whether that means paying more or better yet, spending less, and next year KEEP that GDP growth and use it to do whatever we want, not give it to the Federal Government.

    If you continously spend more than you take in, eventually you end up like Argentina. Either your government collapses back to just a tax-extortion system that offers no services for decades while it is paid off, or your debtors begin to use your huge amounts of bonds just like money, trading them among themselves, creating massive inflation, so all our savings are worthless and our wages can't pay the electric bill. This happens even if the economy is booming. If the economy booms, you have to COLLECT enough of that money to PAY the spending, if it is to make a difference in the your budget.
  • by Leftist Troll (825839) on Friday October 29, 2004 @11:29AM (#10663324)
    It sounds like Sharon is chilling out in his old age though... maybe good things are ahead, we'll see.

    Understand that the Gaza plan (which is what I assume you are reffering to) is designed to halt negotiations. Read the Haaretz interview [] with Sharon advisor Weisglass to understand what's really going on here.
    A brief excerpt:
    "The disengagement plan is the preservative of the sequence principle. It is the bottle of formaldehyde within which you place the president's formula so that it will be preserved for a very lengthy period. The disengagement is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that's necessary
    so that there will not be a political process with the Palestinians." (my emphasis)

    I'd like to also give you a huge "right on" for your point #4:

    4. "Aid and comfort". Fuck off. Vietnam was a total political bullshit war, just like Iraq, and I for one salute every single person who had the balls to stand up and call a spade a spade.

    Anyone who thinks Kerry "invented" the atrocites might want to look into Tiger Force [].

  • by fredrated (639554) on Friday October 29, 2004 @11:30AM (#10663334) Journal
    Yeah, an "obscure Crawford newspaper" which happens to be his home town paper. And don't forget that bush said "if you want to know about me talk to the texans that know me" (not an exact quote).

    a vote for bush is an accessory to murder
  • Re:Endorsements? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by 4of12 (97621) on Friday October 29, 2004 @12:30PM (#10663985) Homepage Journal

    Does anyone know how much effect endorsements actually have on vote counts?


    However, The Economist is probably one of the most highly respected of the weekly news magazines in the English-speaking world. It's read by the heavy movers and shakers (when I had a subscription I used to get bulk mail for services that would make more sense if my net worth were two orders of magnitude higher) and has a lot more detail and depth about international news than you'll typically find in any single U.S. magazine.

    In some ways they could be regarded as Libertarian; a few years ago they had some in-depth articles examining the proposition of decriminalizing recreational drugs.

    The Economist is thoughtful, detailed, slightly right leaning. A good complement to reading the New York Times, which is thoughtful, detailed, slightly left leaning. Both publications are well-written, too.

  • Re:Great quote (Score:4, Interesting)

    by macrealist (673411) on Friday October 29, 2004 @12:31PM (#10664000) Journal
    Wow. Great regurgitation of right wing propaganda.

    However, you need to adjust your RDF. (when did rove steal that from Jobs?)

    for insulting our allies
    - got a reference? Link? Anything but an accusation?

    falsely calling them the coalition of the coerced and the bribed

    Many of the nations in the coalition formed for the 2003 invasion of Iraq stand to receive substantial aid packages and trade benefits from the United States in return for their support. The administration is provided billions of dollars in "aid packages" to coalition members []. Of the 30+ original coalition "members', 19 countries offering only political and/or moral support, one was named without it's knowledge (Solomon Islands), and one was Afganistain. Nine were/are seeking membership into NATO. An Institute for Policy Studies report found that "most were recruited through coercion, bullying, and bribery."

    or by calling our action unilateral.

    Unilateral [] means something much different than you must perceive. England, Australia, and the US have stood together on international issues for decades. If you do not consider these three countries to be on the same side, then you have a very myopic view of world politics.
    In March of 2003, Ari Fleischer said that the adminstration has "all along said, in terms of actual active combat, there will be very, very few countries."

    The original invasion forces consisted of troops from only six countries. Nearly 99.9% of these troops were from the US, UK, or Australia.
    The countries sending troops and the amount of troops were:

    Albania: 70
    Australia: 2000
    Romania: 278
    UK: 45,000
    US: 300,000

    oh, and let's not forget
    Poland: 200

    Without the US's politicing, would the coalition have been created? Did any nations besides the US and UK present evidence insisting immediate action? The coalition was a huge sham, created only for political purposes.

    "A universe whose only claim to be believed in rests on the validity of inference must not start telling us the inference is invalid..." -- C.S. Lewis
  • by demachina (71715) on Friday October 29, 2004 @01:34PM (#10664891)
    "To say that Bush/Cheney have lied more than Clinton/Gore seems a little bit like sticking your head in the sand."

    Please list some of these lies? I can't wait. We can do a head to head comparison of the gravity and magnitude. Again Clinton/Gore were savaged for theirs including impeachment which as serious an accounting as our Constitution allows.

    As nearly as anyone can tell no one in Bush/Cheney have paid in any way for theirs and constantly deny they've ever lied or done anything wrong or made a mistake. Well there was George Tenet, the scapegoat who fell on his sword (and its likely most of the bad intelligence on Iraq came out of the DOD not the CIA, the CIA just didn't fight it) but he was a Clinton hold over and not one of the Bush faithful. I'm exactly pro Clinton/Gore but I'd sure like to see some equity in the political weapons of mass destruction.

    You can attribute the lack of equity to the fact the Republicans completely control the government so there is no one to hold Bush/Cheney to account while Clinton was mauled by a Republican controlled house engaged in a one hatchet job after another. The Republicans can quite literally get away with murder.

    I shopuld add I don't "hate" either of them but I don't like either of them either. Unfortunately neither one of them appears to have the level head, integrity and honesty I want in a President.

    "I just hope that whoever wins on Tuesday wins by a landslide."

    I hope you get your wish but chances are high its going to be a really close election and the losing party is going to be fighting legal battles for months trying to seize power. You don't build two lawyer armies and expect them to go home without fighting a major war first. Neither of these candidates can win on merit so they win with attack ads, smear campaigns, election rigging and a legal spectacle that will likely dwarf 2000.

    "I am tired of the incivility being expressed by both sides"

    Not sure you follow my posts but I slam both candidates equally. I'm not on either side though I really want to Republican stranglehold on power broken. It is extraordinarily unhealthy. I want gridlock again so the nutcases on both side can't keep changing things for the worse.
  • by demachina (71715) on Friday October 29, 2004 @01:54PM (#10665159)
    "The left/liberal/progressive side also tends toward extremism, censorship and suppression of free speech."

    This isn't really a right versus left thing either. Libertarians and true conservatives are a shining light in this regard from the right. Unfortunately they've been buried under the extremism that is the new Republican party. I'm not really interested in framing this as left or right, my problem is almost entirely with the new Republican party and the fact its completely abandoned its civil libertarian and small government roots.

    But, could you cite some example of excess on the left. Some that comes to mind, Roosevelt did step over the line on numerous occasions during World War II, but the whole country left and right was on that band wagon. The Chicago DNC in 1968 was bad. Maybe you could cite suppression of prayer and religion in public institutions but that is a hard issue. Fact is Christians shouldn't be able to inflict their beliefs on others in public schools and courts if we believe in separation of church and state and religious freedom for all.

    Here are a few examples from the right.

    McCarthyism took place the last time Republicans had power in Congress. You will be hard pressed to find a left equivalent of this rabid attempt to destroy our constitutional liberties than that.

    Free speech zones are an invention of today's Republican controlled government, a cyncial name since they are in fact cages designed to hide and suppress people expressing opposition to the people in power. Again you will be hard pressed to find a liberal sponsored equivalent of this major attempt at suppression of free speech. You can claim the Free Speech Zone at the DNC but that was created by Homeland Security and the Secret Service which are run by the Bush administration.

    Its been a while since we've had a government thats been willing to say "you're either with us or you're against us" or you are unpatriotic, aiding and abedding terrorists, if you question or criticize us.
  • Re:Not much... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Pxtl (151020) on Friday October 29, 2004 @03:59PM (#10666770) Homepage
    Plus, the economist saying "vote Kerry" is saying more than most magazines do... most magazines, when they endorse someone, it means "this is good for our cause".

    The economist is read by investors. To them, it means more than its good for a cause. A recommendation from the economist to them means "do this to get more money". A far more direct effect. Especially when even here in Canada, I here people saying "I hope Kerry doesn't win or my pharma stocks will go down".

IF I HAD A MINE SHAFT, I don't think I would just abandon it. There's got to be a better way. -- Jack Handley, The New Mexican, 1988.