The Economist magazine has made their presidential endorsement

[SFLUFAN]

For those of you who don't know, The Economist is a highly respected international business/public affairs magazine that has a wide readership worldwide.

This magazine endorsed Bush in 2000 as well as supported the Iraq war and has been generally favorable to Republicans (they can't stand anything that even reeks of socialism, they're more libertarian than anything else really).

Assessing the state of American politics on their cover story this week, they concluded that our choice is between the incompetent (Bush) and the incoherent (Kerry).

In assessing the sum of the last four years, The Economist has endorsed "with a heavy heart" (their words) John Kerry for the presidency.

I know this will make little or no difference to anyone's opinions or votes - and as well it should not - but I just wanted to let you know that this is a very meaningful, well-written article (trust me, they aren't too thrilled with Kerry but they are a VERY unbiased source) that I encourage you to read if you get the chance.

The article:
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3329802

 

[Sprafa]

I still believe Bush has something up his sleeve... like another huge mess and Supreme Court decision.

 

[SFLUFAN]

Attorneys for both parties are already preparing the necessary legal briefs in certain key states.

 

[blahblahblah]

I normally like the economist. They usually have very well written articles. This article, in my opinion, isn't very well written. It seemed rather rushed in certain areas and never bothered to match each candidate up on each subject area.

I still believe Bush has something up his sleeve... like another huge mess and Supreme Court decision.

+1 point for paranoia. You might has well start accusing Kerry as well, if Kerry doesn't get into office.

 

[SFLUFAN]

It's not meant to be an in-depth analysis of each candidate's position on every issue - that can be easily found in other forums. It's based on their analysis of who they think will be the better leader of the United States for the next four years.

Trust me, they're not too thrilled with Kerry either. I think it's more a lamentation of the deplorable state of American politics rather than a wholehearted endorsement of either man - because neither man deserves the wholehearted endorsement of anyone.

For the record, I am a Republican who voted (via absentee ballot) for Kerry but voted for Republicans for House/Senate.

 

[Sprafa]

+1 point for paranoia. You might has well start accusing Kerry as well, if Kerry doesn't get into office.

I have no doubt the Democrats are doing all they can, I mean, who remembers the uprise of the dead in Chicago to vote for JFK

But several facts, like the guy who makes the most-used electronical machine in this election saying he would do "anything for Bush to win" are kind of fishy.

 

[PvtRyan]

So according to them it's indeed between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwhich as Matt Stone and Trey Parker called it?

 

[SFLUFAN]

Exactly!

 

[Sprafa]

It's the lesser of 2 evils, yes

 

[SFLUFAN]

Actually I like to call it the "evil of 2 lessers" myself

 

[Adidajs]

"evil of 2 lessers" nice sflufan. i would agree.

 

[DiSTuRbEd]

I have no doubt the Democrats are doing all they can, I mean, who remembers the uprise of the dead in Chicago to vote for JFK

But several facts, like the guy who makes the most-used electronical machine in this election saying he would do "anything for Bush to win" are kind of fishy.

Democrats have been acting like little children, I would be more worried about them then the republicans.

 

[Korgoth]

Republicans have been acting like lunatics, I would be more worried about them then the democrats.

 

[Raziaar]

Republicans have been acting like lunatics, I would be more worried about them then the democrats.

But that's how democrats always act! Lunatics! =)