The Economist endorses whom? Obama! (Representatives, vote, Reagan, Democrats)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Business publisher,The Economist, has endorsed President Obama. The say Romney's economic plan will work only if you don't believe it. What is going on here? Business mogul Bloomberg and now the Economist have figured out that Mitt Romney is a liar and an empty suit. Why can't you cons?
Of course the right wing will dismiss this out of hand, because who cares what a bunch of effete British pansies think? Never mind that the Economist is passionately devoted to the free market and cannot reasonably be accused of left-wing bias. The only "liberalism" it endorses is strictly in the European sense, i.e. low regulation, free markets, and free trade.
Actually the Economist has been deeply critical of Obama in many respects; the fact that they've endorsed him anyway just shows what a profoundly flawed candidate Romney is.
You can tell where things are leaning. When people all start suddenly endorsing someone less then a week before the election, it means the other guy will probably lose.
Indeed, the extremism of his party is Mr Romney’s greatest handicap. The Democrats have their implacable fringe too: look at the teachers’ unions. 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.
Mr Obama’s shortcomings have left ample room for a pragmatic Republican, especially one who could balance the books and overhaul government. Such a candidate briefly flickered across television screens in the first presidential debate. This newspaper would vote for that Mitt Romney, just as it would for the Romney who ran Democratic Massachusetts in a bipartisan way (even pioneering the blueprint for Obamacare). The problem is that there are a lot of Romneys and they have committed themselves to a lot of dangerous things.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Economist" Endorses Obama
