'The Economist' Endorses Obama

[Political Junky]

Our American endorsement: Which one? | The Economist

Our American endorsement
Which one?
America could do better than Barack Obama; sadly, Mitt Romney does not fit the bill
Nov 3rd 2012 | from the print edition

FOUR years ago, The Economist endorsed Barack Obama for the White House with enthusiasm. So did millions of voters. Next week Americans will trudge to the polls far less hopefully. So (in spirit at least) will this London-based newspaper. Having endured a miserably negative campaign, the world’s most powerful country now has a much more difficult decision to make than it faced four years ago.

That is in large part because of the woeful nature of Mr Obama’s campaign. A man who once personified hope and centrism set a new low by unleashing attacks on Mitt Romney even before the first Republican primary. Yet elections are about choosing somebody to run a country. And this choice turns on two questions: how good a president has Mr Obama been, especially on the main issues of the economy and foreign policy? And can America really trust the ever-changing Mitt Romney to do a better job? On that basis, the Democrat narrowly deserves to be re-elected.
<more>

 

[J.E.D]

The magazine cites Romney's ever-changing policy positions as part of the reason for their endorsement of president Obama.

'The Economist' Endorses Obama For President - Forbes

The magazine said in a press release today that while Obama’s shortcomings are many, Republican challenger Romney has changed his position too often on policy matters.

Romney has over the last month, changed his stance on health care and foreign policy issues in a likely move to placate party right wingers.

The Economist said it would have chosen Romney if he had maintained his positions from the first debate, or promoted himself as the Romney that ran Massachusetts in a bipartisan way. Even then, however, Massachusetts is a solid Democratic state, with very few Republicans in the state Congress on Beacon Hill.

The problem for the magazine was that there were too many versions of Romney—and, as they have outlined, those versions have a lot of dangerous ideas, including:

Foreign Policy: On foreign policy matters, Romney seems too ready to bomb Iran and he has vowed to label China a currency manipulator, something the U.S. Treasury Department has said China is not.

Government Spending: Although he would slash red tape on the domestic front, Romney said he wants to start with huge tax cuts yet again and dramatically increase defense spending. With what revenues? Magazine editors said, “He is still in the cloud-cuckoo-land of thinking that America’s finances can be dealt with entirely through spending cuts. Backing business is important, but getting the macroeconomics right matters far more.”

Economy: Romney has an economic plan that works only if you don’t believe most of what he says.

 

[konradv]

I'm sure "The Economist" doesn't think much of Romney being led by the nose by the TPers. Like most working economists, they realize that to close the deficit we need to look at budget AND revenue options.

 

[J.E.D]

Yup

 

[rdean]

Previously, they endorsed:

George W. Bush
Bob Dole
Ronald Reagan

THE ECONOMIST: We're Endorsing Obama - Business Insider

President Obama

America was in a downward economic spiral when he took over, with its banks and carmakers in deep trouble and unemployment rising at the rate of 800,000 a month. His responses—an aggressive stimulus, bailing out General Motors and Chrysler, putting the banks through a sensible stress test and forcing them to raise capital (so that they are now in much better shape than their European peers)—helped avert a Depression.

The other qualified achievement is health reform. Even to a newspaper with no love for big government, the fact that over 40m people had no health coverage in a country as rich as America was a scandal.

And for all his shortcomings, Mr Obama has dragged America’s economy back from the brink of disaster, and has made a decent fist of foreign policy.

Mitt Romney

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.

Our American endorsement: Which one? | The Economist

Salt Lake City Tribune endorsed Obama. Reason? "Too many Mitts".

Bloomberg Endorses Obama, Citing Climate Change - NYTimes.com

In a surprise announcement, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said Thursday that Hurricane Sandy had reshaped his thinking about the presidential campaign and that as a result, he was endorsing President Obama.

Since the hurricane, a number of elected officials have come forward, chiefly in New York, to say that they have concluded the planet is undergoing climate change, that huge storms are no longer freak occurrences but expectable reality, and that public policy must begin to prepare for the impact.

Remember, Republicans believe "science is a faith, evolution a lie and climate change a conspiracy".

Romney has been endorsed by the Des Moines Register. The last Republican they endorsed was Richard M. Nixon.

 

[auditor0007]

Previously, they endorsed:

George W. Bush
Bob Dole
Ronald Reagan

THE ECONOMIST: We're Endorsing Obama - Business Insider

President Obama

America was in a downward economic spiral when he took over, with its banks and carmakers in deep trouble and unemployment rising at the rate of 800,000 a month. His responses—an aggressive stimulus, bailing out General Motors and Chrysler, putting the banks through a sensible stress test and forcing them to raise capital (so that they are now in much better shape than their European peers)—helped avert a Depression.

The other qualified achievement is health reform. Even to a newspaper with no love for big government, the fact that over 40m people had no health coverage in a country as rich as America was a scandal.

And for all his shortcomings, Mr Obama has dragged America’s economy back from the brink of disaster, and has made a decent fist of foreign policy.

Mitt Romney

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.

Our American endorsement: Which one? | The Economist

Salt Lake City Tribune endorsed Obama. Reason? "Too many Mitts".

Bloomberg Endorses Obama, Citing Climate Change - NYTimes.com

In a surprise announcement, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said Thursday that Hurricane Sandy had reshaped his thinking about the presidential campaign and that as a result, he was endorsing President Obama.

Since the hurricane, a number of elected officials have come forward, chiefly in New York, to say that they have concluded the planet is undergoing climate change, that huge storms are no longer freak occurrences but expectable reality, and that public policy must begin to prepare for the impact.

Remember, Republicans believe "science is a faith, evolution a lie and climate change a conspiracy".

Romney has been endorsed by the Des Moines Register. The last Republican they endorsed was Richard M. Nixon.

I voted for and supported Ronald Reagan. He was a very good President. Mitt Romney is no Ronald Reagan. In fact, I am certain Ronald Reagan would be repulsed by today's conservatism.

 

[William Joyce]

The Economist is run by lefty Brits who admit communism doesn't work.

That's "conservative"?

 

[JFK_USA]

Boom!!! Awesome endorsement.

 

[Dr.House]

Are these the same economists who are fond of using the term "unexpectedly" often?

 

[asterism]

The magazine cites Romney's ever-changing policy positions as part of the reason for their endorsement of president Obama.

'The Economist' Endorses Obama For President - Forbes

The magazine said in a press release today that while Obama’s shortcomings are many, Republican challenger Romney has changed his position too often on policy matters.

Romney has over the last month, changed his stance on health care and foreign policy issues in a likely move to placate party right wingers.

The Economist said it would have chosen Romney if he had maintained his positions from the first debate, or promoted himself as the Romney that ran Massachusetts in a bipartisan way. Even then, however, Massachusetts is a solid Democratic state, with very few Republicans in the state Congress on Beacon Hill.

The problem for the magazine was that there were too many versions of Romney—and, as they have outlined, those versions have a lot of dangerous ideas, including:

Foreign Policy: On foreign policy matters, Romney seems too ready to bomb Iran and he has vowed to label China a currency manipulator, something the U.S. Treasury Department has said China is not.

Government Spending: Although he would slash red tape on the domestic front, Romney said he wants to start with huge tax cuts yet again and dramatically increase defense spending. With what revenues? Magazine editors said, “He is still in the cloud-cuckoo-land of thinking that America’s finances can be dealt with entirely through spending cuts. Backing business is important, but getting the macroeconomics right matters far more.”

Economy: Romney has an economic plan that works only if you don’t believe most of what he says.

They also cite Obmacare as a positive, so there's the leftward bias.

 

[Sallow]

Wow..

That...really is a surprise.

 

[Sallow]

The magazine cites Romney's ever-changing policy positions as part of the reason for their endorsement of president Obama.

'The Economist' Endorses Obama For President - Forbes

The magazine said in a press release today that while Obama’s shortcomings are many, Republican challenger Romney has changed his position too often on policy matters.

Romney has over the last month, changed his stance on health care and foreign policy issues in a likely move to placate party right wingers.

The Economist said it would have chosen Romney if he had maintained his positions from the first debate, or promoted himself as the Romney that ran Massachusetts in a bipartisan way. Even then, however, Massachusetts is a solid Democratic state, with very few Republicans in the state Congress on Beacon Hill.

The problem for the magazine was that there were too many versions of Romney—and, as they have outlined, those versions have a lot of dangerous ideas, including:

Foreign Policy: On foreign policy matters, Romney seems too ready to bomb Iran and he has vowed to label China a currency manipulator, something the U.S. Treasury Department has said China is not.

Government Spending: Although he would slash red tape on the domestic front, Romney said he wants to start with huge tax cuts yet again and dramatically increase defense spending. With what revenues? Magazine editors said, “He is still in the cloud-cuckoo-land of thinking that America’s finances can be dealt with entirely through spending cuts. Backing business is important, but getting the macroeconomics right matters far more.”

Economy: Romney has an economic plan that works only if you don’t believe most of what he says.

They also cite Obmacare as a positive, so there's the leftward bias.

Seriously?

From the Economist?

You ever read it?

 

[Sallow]

The Economist is run by lefty Brits who admit communism doesn't work.

That's "conservative"?

Fiscally..it's a very conservative rag. They don't really do social issues unless it's government spending or taxes.

 

[asterism]

The magazine cites Romney's ever-changing policy positions as part of the reason for their endorsement of president Obama.

They also cite Obmacare as a positive, so there's the leftward bias.

Seriously?

From the Economist?

You ever read it?

Yes.

They endorsed Obama in 2008 too. They are heavily Keynesian, which is solidly left of center.

 

[asterism]

The Economist is run by lefty Brits who admit communism doesn't work.

That's "conservative"?

Fiscally..it's a very conservative rag. They don't really do social issues unless it's government spending or taxes.

Name one economic conservative position the editorial board has taken. I'll wait while you burn up google looking.

 

[Conservative]

Romney flip-flops... Obama evolves.. we know, we know...

 

[MisterBeale]

So why vote?

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/3302-elites-push-government-funded-public-media

The people that run The Economist meet with politicians at The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOAk-7F1EVU]Cheney on CFR, Council on Foreign Relations - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kfpgl6NqF0I]Hillary Clinton accidentally admits that the CFR runs this nation. Wow. - YouTube[/ame]

Here, don't believe it, here's their updated analysis, I note the bias in their articles. Bear in mind, it doesn't matter if they are Democrat or Republican, they ALL meet there to agree on how they are going to screw over all Americans, the poor, the middle class, and the upper classes. The only people they care about are the ones they know personally, the elites, the ones that are giving and paying into their system personally, buying their $50,000 dollar a plate fund raisers. Etc. ; http://www.cfr.org/us-election-2012/candidates-economy/p26829

The important thing to remember, is that there in the CFR, both Democrats and Republicans, have always been Keynesians at heart. What does that mean? It means they all, in their heart believe the government should control the economy. It means taxing and spending. They disagree on how much to tax, and who to tax. And they disagree over how much to spend and where to spend, but the devil is in the details.

Romney is plagued with trying to attract Ron Paul supporters, radical progressives, and people that have just generally been fed up with Keynesian economics. They know that Keynesian economics is just an excuse for the growth of government and the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few elites. It is not egalitarian at all. So of course these elite organizations which are anti-democratic support Obama. Likewise, they will make certain they retain power by having Obama keep his place in power.

Dirty tricks will be used if the usual conditioning and politicking doesn't do the trick. Hell, even Obama knows he has it in the bag, he has been told as much. I am nearly certain that Romney has been cut a deal and has been told as much too. I remember seeing on the White house's web page the Friday before the Sunday when Romney announced his VP, a video attacking the "Romney/Ryan" economic plan. I was like, "Wait, what?" How did the White House know who Romney was going to announce as his VP before he announced it? By Friday evening, it was taken down though, b/c I had sent it to a buddy and the link was dead by evening. I digress. Most people aren't aware that Romney has a HUGE amount invested in the conservative talk radio market, especially clear channel and Fox news. That's right. So win or lose. . . he still makes a bundle by running and whipping up hope, fear and acrimony.

Here's Obama telling the Russians that he has the election in the bag.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JpPU-SwcbE]Obama tells Russian PM "After Election I Have More Flexibilty" 3/26/2012 - YouTube[/ame]

Here's Romney telling his wealthy supporters he doesn't have a chance of winning, the elites just need to present the people with "so called" viable alternative option. He's just in it for his own noble reasons. (the money)
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfwRyal5fVk]Romney In Secretly Taped Video: Obama Voters 'Dependent' On Government - YouTube[/ame]

I wouldn't be at all surprised that if, come election day, Romney and Ryan themselves went in and voted for Obama. The thing most Americans don't understand about these criminals is that they really don't give a shit about you, they don't give a squat. They aren't Americans, they are globalists. They care more about money and power, they have no use for Americans or the shit they are selling. You are a dupe and a slave to your ego if you are conned. They all believe in Keynesian economics because it is best suited for growing their power, the power of their interests and the interests of the State. When it comes to ruling, they all believe in the Machiavellian philosophy and Realpolitik.

Here is the truth about American government;
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q]George Carlin ~ The American Dream - YouTube[/ame]

And on American economics;
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk]"Fear the Boom and Bust" a Hayek vs. Keynes Rap Anthem - YouTube[/ame]

When Obama wins? It will be better for Romney and his interests than the majority of the membership of this board or anyone who goes out to vote on election day.

And should they decide that there is enough rabid support among Obama supporters to let Obama lose? The only way they would let that happen is if they were sure that the Senate and the House would fall into Republican hands and they could be sure they can somehow provoke inner city riots. . . .

 

[rdean]

So why vote?

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/3302-elites-push-government-funded-public-media

The people that run The Economist meet with politicians at The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)


Cheney on CFR, Council on Foreign Relations - YouTube

Hillary Clinton accidentally admits that the CFR runs this nation. Wow. - YouTube

Here, don't believe it, here's their updated analysis, I note the bias in their articles. Bear in mind, it doesn't matter if they are Democrat or Republican, they ALL meet there to agree on how they are going to screw over all Americans, the poor, the middle class, and the upper classes. The only people they care about are the ones they know personally, the elites, the ones that are giving and paying into their system personally, buying their $50,000 dollar a plate fund raisers. Etc. ; http://www.cfr.org/us-election-2012/candidates-economy/p26829

The important thing to remember, is that there in the CFR, both Democrats and Republicans, have always been Keynesians at heart. What does that mean? It means they all, in their heart believe the government should control the economy. It means taxing and spending. They disagree on how much to tax, and who to tax. And they disagree over how much to spend and where to spend, but the devil is in the details.

Romney is plagued with trying to attract Ron Paul supporters, radical progressives, and people that have just generally been fed up with Keynesian economics. They know that Keynesian economics is just an excuse for the growth of government and the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few elites. It is not egalitarian at all. So of course these elite organizations which are anti-democratic support Obama. Likewise, they will make certain they retain power by having Obama keep his place in power.

Dirty tricks will be used if the usual conditioning and politicking doesn't do the trick. Hell, even Obama knows he has it in the bag, he has been told as much. I am nearly certain that Romney has been cut a deal and has been told as much too. I remember seeing on the White house's web page the Friday before the Sunday when Romney announced his VP, a video attacking the "Romney/Ryan" economic plan. I was like, "Wait, what?" How did the White House know who Romney was going to announce as his VP before he announced it? By Friday evening, it was taken down though, b/c I had sent it to a buddy and the link was dead by evening. I digress. Most people aren't aware that Romney has a HUGE amount invested in the conservative talk radio market, especially clear channel and Fox news. That's right. So win or lose. . . he still makes a bundle by running and whipping up hope, fear and acrimony.

Here's Obama telling the Russians that he has the election in the bag.
Obama tells Russian PM "After Election I Have More Flexibilty" 3/26/2012 - YouTube

Here's Romney telling his wealthy supporters he doesn't have a chance of winning, the elites just need to present the people with "so called" viable alternative option. He's just in it for his own noble reasons. (the money)
Romney In Secretly Taped Video: Obama Voters 'Dependent' On Government - YouTube

I wouldn't be at all surprised that if, come election day, Romney and Ryan themselves went in and voted for Obama. The thing most Americans don't understand about these criminals is that they really don't give a shit about you, they don't give a squat. They aren't Americans, they are globalists. They care more about money and power, they have no use for Americans or the shit they are selling. You are a dupe and a slave to your ego if you are conned. They all believe in Keynesian economics because it is best suited for growing their power, the power of their interests and the interests of the State. When it comes to ruling, they all believe in the Machiavellian philosophy and Realpolitik.

Here is the truth about American government;
George Carlin ~ The American Dream - YouTube

And on American economics;
"Fear the Boom and Bust" a Hayek vs. Keynes Rap Anthem - YouTube

When Obama wins? It will be better for Romney and his interests than the majority of the membership of this board or anyone who goes out to vote on election day.

And should they decide that there is enough rabid support among Obama supporters to let Obama lose? The only way they would let that happen is if they were sure that the Senate and the House would fall into Republican hands and they could be sure they can somehow provoke inner city riots. . . .

I understand the message, but there are rules against linking to that many videos in a single post. I know. I've been caught. I'm more careful now. We need to respect the rules even if Republicans don't.

 

[MisterBeale]

Sorry, I'm reasonably new, I didn't know. Please link me to the rule book on videos. I have read the rules, I didn't see any on videos.

 

[MisterBeale]

Likewise, I am not a Democrat, Republican, Progressive, Libertarian, or any of that non-sense. I am non-partisan.

I have studied politics all of my life, at two Universities (which also happen to be, as most people are not aware, political) and independently. I am aware that the ultimate political authority lay in the sovereign individual. I don't believe in government, on in civic organization. The only political authority should rest in the individual, the family, and the community.