Slashdot Mirror
Economist Endorses Kerry, Reluctantly
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."
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?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> The Economist has supported the tax cuts, But not the increase of government spending.
Indeed. The "tax and spend" Democrats have been replaced by "tax cut and spend" Republicans. All the rhetoric about fiscal responsibility is just a facade for the real debate, "pay now or pay later".
It's hard for the party in power to cut spending, because pork is one of the primary ways for legislators to buy votes.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
as Mr Bush has often said, there is a need in life for accountability. He has refused to impose it himself, and so voters should, in our view, impose it on him ...
it's in my head
Is this a division between the more intellectual America reading and writing newspapers, and the popular opinion?
More of a reflection that newspaper editorials only have a limited impact. There is far more of an impact from the previously mentioned propaganda network: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, etc., etc. In my hometown (Dallas) there are currently *two* radio stations, with pretty significant market share, whose only purpose is to spread GOP propaganda, 24 hours a day. The Democrats have no such partisan network.
I blame the line item veto (the real reason the budget declined during the Clinton years), which was removed following the impeachment trial. It was passed following the Perot candidacy (and strong showing and became a part of the Republican congressional takeover platform, AFAIK). With a line item veto pork could be removed from a bill by the President and a 2/3s vote was required to override it. For those who haven't looked into the sausage factory that is Congress a large bill (annual highway, farm, defense, appropriations, tax, or similar) usually gets a series of amendments added to it that provide for things like a Norwegian-American interpretive center to be built in a congressional district that elected a representative or senator whose support is needed to pass the bill. Since the total bill might be for spending of several billion dollars the expenditure of a few million to secure a marginal vote is good for both parties (those who support the bill for other reasons and the senator whose support was bought). With a line item veto the president could strike the section of the bill that provided for the cultural center, highway, school etc without striking the whole bill and sending it back for another round. Now we shouldn't kid ourselves Presidents were likely to use this to hurt opponents, but overall it cut a whole bunch of wasteful spending. Without that there is no one with an incentive to reduce government spending who is in a position to do so.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
I blame the line item veto (the real reason the budget declined during the Clinton years), which was removed following the impeachment trial.
The line item veto was never actually implemented. As soon as the bill was signed by Clinton it was challenged on constitutional grounds and kept from going into effect. The SCOTUS eventually ruled it unconstitutional, and the OMB afterwards announced that the 40 items that were line item vetoed would have their funds released.
The budget deficit looked good because Clinton was a fiscally responsible president.
Increases in non-defense discretionary spending over the past six administrations:
Nixon/Ford: 6.8% per year
Carter: 2.0% per year
Reagan: -1.3% per year
Bush 1: 4.0% per year
Clinton: 2.5% per year
Bush Jr: 8.2% per year
Source
And here is a nice graph.
John Carmack fan, browsing at +5 since 1999.
Is it obvious much that michael is a Kerry supporter? Is it any surprise that anyone critical of this blatant astroturfing is modded down? I didn't realise Slashdot was a forum in which to impose your political views on others, I thought it was a bookmark collator for IT news. How stupid of me.
Wahh wahh wahh whine whine whine. Look I'm a Republican! Media bias! It's not FAIR! MOMMY! MOMMY! Wah wah wah!
How many stories has the token Republican editor Pudge posted here? Would it be not a million miles from ZERO?
Here, have a nice hot cup of shut the fuck up, pussy. You want Republican propaganda go turn on the radio or point your browser at Free Republic, k? Bush is a complete and utter fuckup and the whole world realizes it, at least those who don't suck Sean Hannity's (et al) cock on a daily basis.
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.
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:
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.
well, actually, the post's argument was that Republicans' government outpaces Democrats, but AFAICare, they both pork everything up.
What amazes me is that the "down home" americans, the 50% or so that make up the "working class" rural vote, believe that they somehow benefit from backing the party that spends in deficit and supports smaller government oversight in business alone, since in personal matters, we have abortion fights, patriots acts, and DCMA/internet nonsense.
These people end up the victims of closed factories, large corporate farming buyouts, and other corporate stomping, all while voting for people what have a "homeboy" appeal to their local nature. Sure, the local congressperson or senator may have a nice chuckle and win a government contract to build an extra submarine for 10$billion, but are these folks actually creating a sustainable lifestyle? nope. contracts end, environmental abuses catch up with you, and large corporations migrate to where the best manufacturering is. ask anyone in so many has-been towns - long after the politicos are done stumping, their constituents are screwed.
You're totally missing Bush's strategery: You don't have to "pay later" if the apocolypse comes! Didn't Nostradamus predict these events?! Yea, these are the end times, people. </sarcasm>
---------The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
awww, because he actually stepped up, did his duty, and went when he was called... served... came back and spoke out on what he saw. He has something to talk about. The fact that he actually did his duty is something he's got up on Mr. Bush.
Just because he spoke out on the war, he shouldn't be able to take credit for actually doing his duty like thousands of others (but not Bush) did?
I've seen a number of editors of conservative newspapers explain why they endorsed Bush in 2000 and are either endorsing no one, Kerry or Bush only reluctantly in 2004. They are pretty consistent in what they say. They endorsed Bush in 2000 based on the policies he said he supported in the campaign, since it was all they had to go on other than his stint as Texas governor which wasn't a very good guide.
They are all disenchanted with him because his actual record in office has run counter to everything they thought he stood for.
In particular they naively though he would be fiscally conservative while he is instead dramatically expanding spending, while cutting taxes leading to a staggering debt. They were naive in thinking he would be fiscally conservative since Bush idolizes Reagan and Reagan ran up the deficit exactly the same way though Bush has taken it to a who new level. Reagan could blame the Dems for the spending since they controlled Congress. The Republicans have no one to blame but themselves and its especially bad since its massively, hypocritical juxtaposed to their fiscal responsibility rhetoric. All the editors put this at or near the top of their list for turning on him with the war in Iraq being the other top reason.
- During the campaign Bush said he was dead set against nation building but they are instead doing it all over the place especially in Iraq, Afghanistan and Haiti. Conservatives hate nation building.
- Bush/Cheney have established a track record of either lieing or being so completely wrong it borders on incompetence, especially on the reasons for invading Iraq. Most newspaper editors are thoughtful, educated and informed people. Bush/Cheney have been able to lie their way out of the lies with less thoughtful, less educated and less informed American. I don't think its working with newspaper editors who are smart enough to see that the Republicans are being consistently untruthful and are getting away with it.
There is a paper in Orlando, Florida who has been getting a lot of press for endorsing Kerry. They haven't endorsed a Democrat since Johnson in 1964. Its telling that Johnson was running a right wing extremist, Barry Goldwater, which is no doubt why they endorsed LBJ. You could conclude this paper is placing George W. Bush in the same class as Barry Goldwater. They do have a lot in common for their severe tilt to the far right, lack of judgement and thoughtful discretion.
@de_machina
While surprisingly progressive on social issues (the Economist is against the war on drugs for instance), and other times conservative (they supported the war in Iraq), it's a centrist to center-right magazine, balancing its values against pragmatic considerations. I think this makes the endorsement particularly condemning. A NY Times endorsement for Kerry is expected (anything else would be a sign of the End Times). An Economist endorsement of Kerry means that some very level-headed moderate conservatives and centrists looked at Bush and found him wanting. They say: we like his vision best. But it's clear he lacks the ability to carry it out. They aren't as thrilled by Kerry's vision, but feel he's all in all more capable for the job.
Probably a fair assessment. It's hard to disagree with Bush when he advocates freedom. But turning Iraq into a giant guerilla war and locking people up without due process or trial isn't the way to create that. Perhaps Bush would be more fun on a fishing trip. But John Kerry is clearly the better man to lead the United States.
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".