It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Economist Endorses Kerry over Bush

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Read this very interesting article today in a fairly conservative emag(which in prior elections has recommended 96: Dole 00: Bush 04: Kerry)




economist.com...
The incompetent or the incoherent?

With a heavy heart, we think American readers should vote for John Kerry on November 2nd


YOU might have thought that, three years after a devastating terrorist attack on American soil, a period which has featured two wars, radical political and economic legislation, and an adjustment to one of the biggest stockmarket crashes in history, the campaign for the presidency would be an especially elevated and notable affair. If so, you would be wrong. This year's battle has been between two deeply flawed men: George Bush, who has been a radical, transforming president but who has never seemed truly up to the job, let alone his own ambitions for it; and John Kerry, who often seems to have made up his mind conclusively about something only once, and that was 30 years ago. But on November 2nd, Americans must make their choice, as must The Economist. It is far from an easy call, especially against the backdrop of a turbulent, dangerous world. But, on balance, our instinct is towards change rather than continuity: Mr Kerry, not Mr Bush.

Whenever we express a view of that sort, some readers are bound to protest that we, as a publication based in London, should not be poking our noses in other people's politics. Translated, this invariably means that protesters disagree with our choice. It may also, however, reflect a lack of awareness about our readership. The Economist's weekly sales in the United States are about 450,000 copies, which is three times our British sale and roughly 45% of our worldwide total. All those American readers will now be pondering how to vote, or indeed whether to. Thus, as at every presidential election since 1980, we hope it may be useful for us to say how we would think about our vote—if we had one.


Im not really sure how much clout The Economist has seeing that it is a UK mag, But it reaches an audience that has most typically voted conservative since the dawn of time heh. Anyway what you all think about this think it could affect the outcome?




posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 03:23 PM
link   
The Economist is not an "emag".

It is recognized as the leading journal for economic and political analysis on the planet, bar none, and has been published over 160 years.

*points to site motto*



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Just more proof of what we already know -- there's a groundswell of support both here in America, and abroad, of people that don't want to see Bush as president for another four years.

I don't know that any one of these things taken individually could sway votes, but when you take ALL of them into account?



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Well I think The Economist has really hit the nail on the head this time. Bush and Kerry are both sub-par, and by a wide margin. The US will be worse off with either man as President. Maybe both men should step down and do the right thing by their country and let Hillary and Giuliani fight it out. Hell change the law and get Arnold up on the podium. Just give us a chance at something good.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
The Economist is not an "emag".

It is recognized as the leading journal for economic and political analysis on the planet, bar none, and has been published over 160 years.

*points to site motto*



Heh sry bout dat, I know it's very illustrious i only called it an Emag cuz i found it on the web(habbit i guess). 160 yrs, man thats a long time to be in business.

[edit on 28-10-2004 by sardion2000]



new topics

 
0

log in

join