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.
Leave a Comment:
Both have their left foot forward in the cover.
So what when you march in the military you always start on your left foot. The Greeks did it, the Romans did it the Carthaginians did it and we do it.
So are you implying that all military institutions are socialist institutions, indoctrinating their members to follow their leaders lock-step? :p
"So what when you march in the military you always start on your left foot. The Greeks did it, the Romans did it the Carthaginians did it and we do it."
*whoosh*
Conservative crackpots make ridiculous remarks.
Move along, nothing to see here.
I think you mean "to the left," Steve.
We need to start treating Faux Derangement Syndrome as a serious communicable disease .
I can't help but wonder what will happen when Obama wins . They will surely go over the edge
pretty much anybody to the left of attila the hun is now part of the "liberal establishment"
Are you kidding to these people Attila was a pinko
I think we should consider moving everyone with Faux Derangement Syndrome to GitMo and isolate them there. They are a serious national security threat and should be treated as such.
Or just hang them for treason.
Either way it helps get the country back to a reality based footing.
It's not even left-right, really. If you disagree with any part of conservative orthodoxy, that makes you "liberal."
I suppose it isn't surprising that conservatives are desperate to return to the Cold War, since they learned so much from the Stalinists...
Both The Economist and Nurse Bloomberg endorse Obama today. SPLITTERS!
Thank you I needed that
Yeah thank you Marko. Nothing like a little Monty Python to start the weekend right.
I suspect that with today's American Conservatives, anything to the left of Der Stürmer, as published by Julius Streicher, is too Liberal.
There is conspiracy-oriented websites that "might" satisfy them. Or there is "Fox News". And crackpot favorite "Newsmax".
The first rule of conservatism is to declare yourself "the center."
The second is to work to make it true.
Well, given the mutual admiration society between Mitt and Trump, we've got conservative cloud-cuckoo-land endorsing conservative cloud-cuckoo-land.
Thus so what, these off-hand dismissal of endorsements, do they really affect the numbers anyway?
Definition of 'liberal' according to Republicans: any person or entity that lives and thinks outside the Fox News bubble. If it is not on Fox, it is not news and it is of no relevance. So The Economist which reports and critically examines politics and economy on every country in the world would be out of that bubble.
I am not a politician, but I do teach Economics, and I think to say that calling the Economist a liberal media outlet is (and take care, this is a closely guarded term of art) bat-@!$%# crazy. The Wall Street Journal has become a shill (and a shrill one at that). I put the veracity of the Economist at a high-level, and I think they do a good job, but they simply are not liberal.
The definition of "Liberal Media" is anything Rupert Murdoch doesn't own or can't buy
Doc
Of course The Economistis not Liberal media outlet. What it is, is well written, thoughtful, responsible journalism that happens to lean to the right. Just because I lean to the left doesn't I don't read anything that is to the right of me. I agree with you on WSJ. I used to read that too till Murdoch took over.
The Economist has had no problem over the last few months being critical of Obama on several issues. OTOH, they recently had a cover with the caption, "So, Mitt, what do you really believe?"
And if either one of them were caught in bed with a dead woman or a live boy, Fox and the National Review would identify them in the news coverage as Democrats.
"Nurse Bloomberg"? What a bunch of juvenile asses.
Read Rich Lowry's essay on why we should vote for Romney. He spoke at length about what a good, honorable man Romney is. Didn't mention all the policy shifts due to the change in the political winds.
So, it's filed under fiction?
Get Enraged and Engaged:
Mooch the Vote 2012!
;-)
Something like, "Mitt Romney is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life," perhaps?
I really like the Nationalist Review, they have such informative articles.
Apparently the NatRev doesn't know what "Move along, nothing to see here" means.
They'd better be careful, or the Republicans will have that report "taken down".
I was somewhat critical of the tepid endorsement of the Economist for President Obama, but I have to say this graphic is a thing of beauty. There is some really positive and powerful subliminal messaging going on. As an "old school" marketing student (before the internet) and a person who understands the body language that projects power and positioning, I'd say they are gangbusters for Obama and I couldn't be more pleased.
Oooh, I agree. After feeling somewhat aggitated earlier, I find that graphic showing our President's sureness of a foot forward comforting.
Well, The Economist ought to have a "tepid" endorsement of Obama. They did support him four years ago with high hopes, and support him again mostly against the "volatility" of Mitt. However, the message is clear, as the cover shows: Obama is more steadfast in his actions and deeds. Romney looks unsure and volatile. It is a catch.
Twenty first "conservatism" is not conservative. It is an American version, and therefore more individualistic and without the mass uniformed rallies, of the authoritarian and nihilistic right that caused Europe such pain from the end of WWI to WWII. They are enemies of civilized society using our customs and politics against us. Genuine conservatives like The Economist and Andrew Sullivan and Bruce Bartlett and others are appalled.
Occasionally, very seldom, but occasionally, common sense trumps ideology in conserva-world.
Congratulations to The Economist for getting over itself and admitting that FUBARRomney is a hopeless disaster. 'Cause that's what it would take for The Economist to endorse a Democrat for POTUS. They've been critical of Obama for months, and enabling FUBARRomney regardless of his lies and flip-floppery.
It's a pretty lame outcome for FUBARRomney that this is what they came down to.
Well, yes and no. Sure, the Economist did criticize Obama for some things, most notably his handling of the recovery, however their appreciation of Romney has never been of a high level. They did criticize him heavily on his political volatility (literally flanking the subject on the cover of a recent issue) and they did favor Jon Huntsman over Romney early in the debates, only to see him crash and forcing them to, very tepidly, favor Romney (and underlining the appalling level of his opponents, especially Santorum's). So, to a certain extent, this magazine endorsing Obama isn't a huge surprise.
Mitt checking to see if he is on the right foot. Which, of course, is the left.
Ha!
Eh... If "The Economist" is a member of the "liberal establishment", then what can be considered as being a "conservative" publication? David Icke? The Economist is a serious, relatively center-right publication. It has, however, always defended free enterprise. And for the GOP to lose their support is a STRONG sign that the GOP has gone WAY to the left. I mean, they did endorse David Cameron back in 2010 and Sarkozy last May...
This is why I like the Economist. They're conservative, but they're fact-based, and don't lie or hide the truth to push an agenda. I don't mind hearing another viewpoint, as long as they're honest with me.
Well said, Jurgan. The Economist has been one of my must-reads for years precisely because of your well-stated reasons.
"...a fairly moderate, center-left Democratic president."
We are talking about a guy whose main policy goals have largely been cribbed from Republican ideas from the past 2 decades. Health care reform with an individual mandate (and don't forget, originally Obama opposed the individual mandate)? Look to Bob Dole and Heritage. Cap and Trade? Talk to C. Boyden Gray. Tax cuts or tax increases? Were Ronald Reagan and Bob Dole moderate, center-left Democrats? If so, it was a helluva secret.
In other words, the Republicans have been voting against their own ideas.