Comments on: The Economist endorses Barack Obama

By: ElleBeMe

ElleBeMe — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:25:36 +0000

“And is “redistributionist” a real word anyway? Where are McCain and the wingnuts coming up with this stuff?
”

Everyone has the same source for this…it’s just that some people do not prefer to use their rectum as a knowledge base/mouthpiece. :>)

By: peter

peter — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 13:27:39 +0000

princeton12,

The little smiley face at the end of my post was supposed to indicate sarcasm.

I don’t think there’s a sane person on the planet that thinks The Economist is communist.

And is “redistributionist” a real word anyway? Where are McCain and the wingnuts coming up with this stuff?

By: ElleBeMe

ElleBeMe — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 13:17:27 +0000

The Economist is a magazine that our intelligence (US) services read, and are encouraged to do so. I happen to know of one brance of HS that encourages its recruits to read it – for it is one of the best sources out there for international/economic/social policy developments.

If they’re panning McCain, it is a big deal. But who can blame them – the Republicans haven’t exactly been kind to their intelligence officers and their work these past 8 years. Can anyone say Valerie Plame?

By: Hugo

Hugo — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 05:45:16 +0000

The Economist is indeed centrist — and though thirty years ago, they might have favored Republicans in American elections, the GOP moved dramatically to the right and left the Economist behind.

By: Princeton'12

Princeton'12 — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 05:09:09 +0000

peter, I know its just about halloween, but please don’t try to go as joseph mccarthy. for your sake–its just not very becoming.

By: Harrison

Harrison — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 04:46:25 +0000

I have to go to the defense of The Economist here. I subscribe and read it faithfully–especially the news and opinion portions. Not that I always agree with them; to the contrary, they are to the right of me on any number of issues. But they have excellent writers and a valuable perspective. (Did you know there’s a whole world out there that has nothing to do with US? The Economist does and covers it; most of the US MSM doesn’t unless there’s a war, famine or some other catastrophe.) I have been enjoying their coverage of the campaign. It’s not the predigested pap you get from virtually all of the MSM in the U.S.

And I have to second Morningstar–they are not pro-Bush at all. They did come out for the Iraq War (that was a big disappointment to me); but when they realized the mistake they made, they immediately admitted it and analyzed their mistake in great detail. And they have been very critical of much of the Bush presidency for any number of years.

If it’s a lukewarm endorsement, so be it; that’s a good thing about the mag–they’re not afraid to take a stand but analyze it and point out the good and the bad. I find it honest and refreshing.

Yes, I’m a big fan of The Economist and no, I have no financial connection with them (other than subscribing–I wish a subscription were cheaper, but you have to pay for quality, IMHO).

As for Obama, I voted for him (via absentee ballot here in CA) and I’m not going to be able to fully relax until (if) he’s sworn in. I don’t think he’s perfect, BTW, but I like a lot of what he says and stands for; I think he’s just what our country needs.

Wow. That was much longer than I intended. Sorry for the rant.

Go Obama!

By: Peter

Peter — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 02:45:58 +0000

Pffffttt.

The Economist is a well known den of socialists, communists, and “redistributionists”.

;-)

By: Morningstar

Morningstar — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 02:20:17 +0000

the economist is not pro-bush at all.

By: Morningstar

Morningstar — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 02:19:12 +0000

“What a weird and lukewarm endorsement.”

they’re british. lukewarm is all they do.

By: Michael Hussey

Michael Hussey — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 01:51:27 +0000

Brad Delong rightfully lamented the Economist being too pro-Bush. This is more an anti-McCain endorsement than pro-Obama.