The Economist, in its endorsement of President Obama. Also?
Indeed, the extremism of his party is Mr Romney’s greatest handicap. .... But the Republicans have become a party of Torquemadas, forcing representatives to sign pledges never to raise taxes, to dump the chairman of the Federal Reserve and to embrace an ever more Southern-fried approach to social policy. Under President Romney, new conservative Supreme Court justices would try to overturn Roe v Wade, returning abortion policy to the states. The rights of immigrants (who have hardly had a good deal under Mr Obama) and gays (who have) would also come under threat. This newspaper yearns for the more tolerant conservatism of Ronald Reagan, where “small government” meant keeping the state out of people’s bedrooms as well as out of their businesses. Mr Romney shows no sign of wanting to revive it.
Leave a Comment:
One does have to learn to appreciate that dry British sense of humor, doesn't one?
I thin they left out the words "Chickens" "Home" and "Roost"
Ummm... One wonders what color the sky is on their planet...
Holy Crap! I mean, Romney makes Ronald look like some kind of tolerant 'girly-man?' Do the people at The Economist have any idea what they just wrote and published?
What the hell? I would have figured that line had come from The Onion.
It is also fair to wonder whether the Economist would have made this endorsement if Romney was up 5 in Ohio, Florida and Virginia.
The Economist wants greater penetration for their religion of market fundamentalism. They praise Obama for nominating Clinton and Geithner and fault him for his attitudes about privatization and deregulation. They even fault him for the political composition of his golf games. Perhaps they would offer the same criticism of Eisenhower who had only one democrat in his golf "Gang"? Certainly not. The rest were GOP plutocrats: captains of industry.
So why wait until days before the vote and so many early votes have already been cast. The answer is that the Economist has a great deal of respect for numbers.
The Economist could have written this article after the first Presidential debate when the two economic points of view were articulated. Instead they decided not to weigh in when their point of view mattered. Like Romney, the Economist editorial staff decided to abdicate its leadership responsibility, using its authority when it mattered, to stand up and state convictions when the electorate was making up their minds about the two candidate's economic credentials.
The Economist deserves no respect for this endorsement. They are joining the parade when it has become obvious which way the election will go.
An endorsement from Fawlty Towers!
Mr Fawlty he no home.
You know Pat, I may disagree with you on many things, but I do have to applaud you for referencing Fawlty Towers. That made me laugh. :)
Seriously, jokes about British TV, that's all you got
This isn't just an endorsement of Obama this is an indictment of all the people and positions you profess to support.
and your gonna go with Fawlty towers...
Of course Karl Rove tactics 101 when all else fails use the absurd to distract from GOP failures.
Does this endorsement matter to low information voters?
Let's be honest- not only does it not matter to the people who are still undecided, it doesn't matter to people voting for Romney because they care about the economy and claim that Obama does not understand how to make the economy better. You will see near zero coverage of the Economist story in RomneyWorld media outlets. But let's hold up the mirror. How many of us really want to hear Rachael explain the Libor rate or what the G20 said this week about the 28 dominant global financial institutions. How many of us can name Ben Bernanke's counterpart in the EU, or why these guys are so important.
The sad thing is that for a race whose dominant issue is the economy, typical voters are put to sleep by serious discussions of the economic fundamentals that challenge the country. I often fault MSNBC for the children's book treatment they give these issues, but I fault the public more for its psychotic disinterest in the issues that are of direct economic consequence to their everyday lives. I guess the fair thing to say is that producers putting together these stories are doing the best they can with the audience hand they have been dealt.
Maybe this is the way most people deal with complexity. It's like when we pull our car into the garage and what we know is the car is not running right and that these guys know how to fix it. We have a dashboard knowledge, and when the guy looks at his readout and tells us the diagnostics say we need an IAC valve, if we are males we nod gravely as if we understood what that was and ask how much the damage will be.
We do the same thing with economics, and its dumb. I mean Curly and Mo poke in the eye dumb. Look up IAC valve on You Tube for your model and you will learn that you have a good chance to avoid the $450 dollar repair bill if you have a Philips screwdriver and some carburetor cleaner.
Same thing with the propositions these guys are making for solutions for economic problems. Not just immediate cyclic issues re igniting the consumer economy, but bigger picture trends that have hurt us over the past few decades on trade issues and declining middle class income.
Thank you, very well put. And if I might be so bold as to give you a few reasons why Americans are now the stupidest people on the planet:
1) We have a corporate owned media that NO longer feels compelled to inform their viewers.
2) We have dumbed down "reality television" and numerous deviating mind numbing humorless shows - and the sheeple are hooked.
3) WE have allowed "religuluoun" to go unchecked in our politics.
4) WE have a faltering public educational system that isn't providing enough basic knowledge, and no longer teaches logical thinking; we also have far too many being "home-schooled" - and before anyone gives me lip - I meant exactly what I said, because regardless that your friend Annie did such and such and is so well adjusted, that is NOT the rule!
5) WE as a people have been divided by hate for other and selfishness, we have forgotten "the commons" - what it is, why it's needed, and how it is supposed to operate!
WE as a people are working harder for much less money, and the Plutocracy understands this; most of US don't really even know our neighbors let alone "have meaningful conversations" with them! We are so busy like "rats on that wheel" forever running to something (consumerism) or sedating our pain (whatever your drug of choice from overeating to alcoholism) and trying not to talk about it! WE all feel as though we are individuals, alone with our own issues and not connected to each other! These factors and more have contributed to the isolation & fear that the GOTP continue to tap into to divide and conquer US all!
Probably doesn't matter to LIVs, but it does matter.
I see Irish Pat's still hitting the Guinness early and throwing grounders.
Ah yes . . . tolerant Ronald Reagan, who refused to take AIDS seriously because, after all, it was only killing gay men.
Conservatives just love to re-write history.
The Economist is a well-balanced, very informative weekly. If one wants to keep up on what is going on around the world, this news magazine is one very good way to do it.
As long as you don't pay any attention to their Thatcher/Reagan worship.
It's interesting to observe that in the text of its endorsement, The Economist is quite on the defensive about its own character. It seems to be saying again and again, "hey, we're right wing but we're not batcrap crazy!"
Lol - perfect.
I get The Economist, and it's a shock that they endorsed Obama so strongly. They have railed against him for four years. What this really says is that Romney is an amazingly weak candidate.
So Rachel, do you actually think that Romney understands economics? He is the male version of Sarah Paline. Flat out stupid.
Exactly what the ruling (R)s (Norquist, Kochs, Rove, etc) were looking for - someone with enough working digits to hold a pen and sign whatever they put in front of him.
Romney apparently is stupid enough to think that assessment of him is a good thing. After all, he's running on it.
Cue the Ezra Klein interactive tool
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/31/interactive-make-mitt-romneys-tax-plan-add-up/
I wouldn't say it is shocking TE endorses Obama. Their coverage of the race continues to mention how Romney simply does not give answers, has not laid out specifics and often when he does give specifics, he or his campaign then walks those comments back. And they hate his position of labeling China a currency manipulator
The right was already going crazy over TE's issue on global warming a little while ago. They may be clinging to a hazy Ronald Reagan right, but that's probably because there is no credible, sane right to cling to anymore.