My colleague Kent Jones had an item earlier noting The Economist's interesting endorsement of President Obama. The magazine didn't seem eager to support the incumbent, but lamented the "extremism" of the Republican Party and Mitt Romney's "cloud-cuckoo-land of thinking," among other considerations.
But before we move on, I also wanted to highlight National Review's reaction to this and yesterday's other noteworthy endorsement.
Both The Economist and Nurse Bloomberg endorse Obama today.
Liberal establishment backs liberal candidate.
Move along, nothing to see here.
Yes, as far as National Review is concerned, just about everything to the left of National Review is necessarily the "liberal establishment."
The Economist, of course, has long been considered a conservative publication. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, meanwhile, supported George W. Bush and recently suggested Elizabeth Warren is a socialist.
But both are members of the "liberal establishment," in part because they have no use for the radicalized GOP, and in part because they support a fairly moderate, center-left Democratic president.
I'm afraid National Review's assessment says more about 21st century conservatism than about The Economist or Bloomberg.