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."
> 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 The "tax and spend" Democrats have been replaced by "tax cut and spend" Republicans.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
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.
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.
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.
Does anyone know how much effect endorsements actually have on vote counts?
Depends.
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.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
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
I am living proof of the Peter Principle
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.