Economist endorses Obama
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21565623-am…
Some quotes:
"As with the gargantuan Dodd-Frank reform of Wall Street, Obamacare has generated a tangle of red tape—and left business to deal with it all."
"It is here that our doubts about Mr Obama set in. No administration in many decades has had such a poor appreciation of commerce. Previous Democrats, notably Bill Clinton, raised taxes, but still understood capitalism. Bashing business seems second nature to many of the people around Mr Obama."
"Mr Obama has shown no readiness to tackle the main domestic issue confronting the next president: America cannot continue to tax like a small government but spend like a big one."
"But Mr Romney seems too ready to bomb Iran, too uncritically supportive of Israel and cruelly wrong in his belief in “the Palestinians not wanting to see peace”."
"Yet far from being the voice of fiscal prudence, Mr Romney wants to start with huge tax cuts (which will disproportionately favour the wealthy), while dramatically increasing defence spending. Together those measures would add $7 trillion to the ten-year deficit."
"Mr Romney’s more sensible supporters explain his fiscal policies away as necessary rubbish, concocted to persuade the fanatics who vote in the Republican primaries"
It was really upsetting that they did not talk at all about Romney's theme of making the U.S. a more attractive and competitive country for business. This is an idea which has been incredibly effective on the state level.
I was expecting the Economist not to endorse anyone this year but I guess this isn't all that surprising.
To the OP: I think it's pretty clear from The Economist's piece that they endorse Romney's broader vision for economic competitiveness; their editorial position is well-known and they wrote in no uncertain terms about their distaste for the business-bashing tendencies of the Obama coterie. Your disappointment is not justified; Romney's pro-investment/competitiveness philosophy is already "priced in" with the rest of their piece. Their problem is with Romney's seeming need to acquiesce to the less than sensible wings of the Republican party in order to avoid mutiny, and how that makes it harder to actually envisage what a Romney presidency would look like, given that Romney has campaigned to be a different kind of President than he was a Governor. The Economist's can be understood as essentially a risk-averse position; the lack of details from the Romney campaign about how exactly to implement that more attractive business environment (not to mention the fiscal plan), coupled with a seemingly out of control GOP, have put a risk premium on the Romney stock that looks expensive to The Economist. They know the returns on Obama are low (or lower than the high end of Romney's potential), but they feel a greater certainty in being able to quantify what they'll get.
Hilarious username, LOL
The writer spelled "defense" the British way "defence" so my question is why should anyone give a flying f*ck who a foreign newspaper endorses? We already know most foreigners support Obama and the guy writing this piece is clearly not an American.
Moron. Maybe because the Economist is a higly respected and internationally renown magazine that does a fantastic job of presenting critical issues thoughtfully?
Moron. The Economist is a well known politically liberal FOREIGN periodical. Why would any American put any stock in what the Economist has to say about US elections? The writer of the endorsement doesn't have to live with the positive or negative consequences of the election. It would be like the Washington Post making an endorsement for Italy's Prime Minister when the writer of the endorsement doesn't have to live with the consequences of the Italian election.
I fucking hate everything you post. You are an absolute jackass and have some severe issues with anything foreign. Dude, look around you. Everything is foreign. Fuck.
You mad?
The Economist is pretty on point with most things. I agree with almost that entire article and if you read it, and are rational, you probably will too. They just tend to make a conclusion that i'm not sure follows from the premise. Essentially, their endorsement comes down to, we like what Romney has done in the past and would endorse him except we think the extreme right of the republican party has tainted him enough that we think another four years of a mediocre Obama will be better.
I just don't buy that Romney, especially after winning the election, will pander to the extreme right. So, while he has been a flip-flopper out of political necessity, I would expect him to act as the President much the way he acted as Governor. And if that's the case, the Economist clearly says they would much prefer him over Obama. So it essentially all comes down to what you think about his campaign and how much is pandering to his base or how much is a legitimate move to the right.
Even if I look past your prejudices, there is still a flaw with your argument (if you can even call it an argument). The nationality of another has nothing to do with his/her ability to form a rational argument. Especially in this case since the United States is fairly transparent. Although somebody in another country may not be able to completely "know" what it's like to be here. If s/he does her/his research (as I trust somebody at the Economist to do), then s/he would easily have a very sound argument.
Furthermore, sometimes the view of a third party is more enlightening. I think most people have experienced a circumstance where you look at the same thing, the same way for so long, that it can help to have a fresh eye take a look.
Ok, your argument makes no sense. First of all, 21 American newspapers have reversed their 2008 endorsements of Obama, including Iowa's flagship newspaper, which hasn't endorsed a Republican since 1972. If nothing else, these people are actually in the United States and have an opinion informed by daily experiences. If I wrote an endorsement for a foreign politician it would be with a strong pro-American foreign policy bias (e.g. I would support Putin and Chavez and Ahmadinejad's challengers) and not with the context of the domestic policy needs of the people. The author for the Economist doesn't have to live with the daily consequences of Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, Net Neutrality, EPA ending the coal industry through fiat, judicial appointments, voter ID rules, immigration policies, etc.
Again, I'm wondering why any American should put stock in the endorsement of a foreign newspaper, for or against that person's candidate. I'm wondering why a German would care who the New York Times endorses for German's Chancellor since the American author does not need to live with the consequences of the outcome. I would think an American endorsement would carry far more weight. In fact, I would place no weight on an endorsement from the Economist.
...and the Financial Times endorses O over the same reason - you just don't know which Mitt to trust. Some of Mitt's vision is clearly the right way to go, but the Primary Mitt scares people.
Sint enim voluptatem accusantium molestiae alias maxime consequatur. Ratione facere harum labore ullam veniam quo omnis. Aliquid consequatur ut a. Officia libero qui earum voluptatem et et reiciendis perspiciatis.
Consequatur natus ut vitae ipsa. Rerum cupiditate fugiat dolore aut doloremque est.
A voluptas id sequi voluptatibus. Eaque quis consequatur aut et et. Voluptas adipisci non ex itaque eos.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...