Economist's endorsement

[Number 5]

In the past The Economist has endorsed Bush in 2000, Dole in 1996 and Clinton in 1992.

I consider The Economist to be a highly reputable and insightful publication. Their endorsement is well-balanced and worth reading for both Kerry and Bush supporters because it offers some balance that has been lacking on both sides.

-5

America's next president

The incompetent or the incoherent?

Oct 28th 2004
From The Economist print edition

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.

rest at:

 

[size]

The Economist has some good info, but one should note that is is based in England.

Some of the most prestigious economists are against Kerry's economic policies, including six Nobel laureates: Gary Becker, James Buchanan, Milton Friedman, Robert Lucas, Robert Mundell, and Edward Prescott(the winner of this year’s Nobel Prize in Economics). The economists warned that Sen. Kerry’s policies “would, over time, inhibit capital formation, depress productivity growth, and make the United States less competitive internationally. The end result would be lower U.S. employment and real wage growth.�

 

[kwyckemynd00]

The Economist has some good info, but one should note that is is based in England.

Some of the most prestigious economists are against Kerry's economic policies, including six Nobel laureates: Gary Becker, James Buchanan, Milton Friedman, Robert Lucas, Robert Mundell, and Edward Prescott(the winner of this year’s Nobel Prize in Economics). The economists warned that Sen. Kerry’s policies “would, over time, inhibit capital formation, depress productivity growth, and make the United States less competitive internationally. The end result would be lower U.S. employment and real wage growth.�

:goodpost:

 

[Number 5]

The Economist has some good info, but one should note that is is based in England.

Some of the most prestigious economists are against Kerry's economic policies, including six Nobel laureates: Gary Becker, James Buchanan, Milton Friedman, Robert Lucas, Robert Mundell, and Edward Prescott(the winner of this year’s Nobel Prize in Economics). The economists warned that Sen. Kerry’s policies “would, over time, inhibit capital formation, depress productivity growth, and make the United States less competitive internationally. The end result would be lower U.S. employment and real wage growth.�

There are more nobel prize winning economists who support kerry, and a recent poll done by The Economist showed that on average economists give bush low marks and they would prefer kerry's economic policies. i'll post sources tomorrow if you want. meanwhile i'd like to see a source for your info.

-5

 

[size]

There are more nobel prize winning economists who support kerry, and a recent poll done by The Economist showed that on average economists give bush low marks and they would prefer kerry's economic policies.
-5

Crazy.
Are you an economist or have you worked with many economists? If so then you understand that economics has a broad spectrum of thoughts and beliefs. There are economists who believe in socialism to Keynesianism to classical to monetarism. Consequently Nobel prizes are awarded in economics over various research/disciplines. However, the USA economy is geared towards laissez-faire capitalism and therefore the inclusion of an economist such as Milton Friedman should speak volumes to any economist.

 

[kwyckemynd00]

Crazy.
Are you an economist or have you worked with many economists? If so then you understand that economics with a broad spectrum of thoughts and beliefs. There are economists who believe in socialism to Keynesianism to classical to monetarism. Consequently Nobel prizes are awarded in economics over various disciplines. However, the USA economy is geared towards laissez-faire capitalism and therefore the inclusion of an economist such as Milton Friedman should speak volumes to any economist.

:goodpost:

 

[size]

I consider The Economist to be a highly reputable and insightful publication. Their endorsement is well-balanced and worth reading for both Kerry and Bush supporters because it offers some balance that has been lacking on both sides.

-5

It was a good read and I thought it was very respectable to add that it is a London based publication. However, from an economic perspective, it was seriously lacking.

 

[Number 5]

Crazy.
Are you an economist or have you worked with many economists? If so then you understand that economics has a broad spectrum of thoughts and beliefs. There are economists who believe in socialism to Keynesianism to classical to monetarism. Consequently Nobel prizes are awarded in economics over various research/disciplines. However, the USA economy is geared towards laissez-faire capitalism and therefore the inclusion of an economist such as Milton Friedman should speak volumes to any economist.

You make it sound as if each economist subscribes to one school of thought and different schools differ completely on policy matters. In reality economists cannot be classified so simplisticly. They are aware of the different theories and also of the empirical research done in the field. They call it as they see it based on the facts. Differences of course do occur because economics is not an exact science, plus they may have their own biases and different favorite theories.

Now 10 Nobel economists have endorsed Kerry over Bush in an open letter.

The economists saying the Bush administration had “embarked on a reckless and extreme course that endangers the long-term economic health of our nation.�

They cited “poorly designed� tax cuts that instead of creating jobs have turned budget surpluses into enormous budget deficits, a “fiscal irresponsibility threatens the long-term economic security and prosperity of our nation.�

from: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5818277/

These economists include Kenneth Arrow, Paul Samuelson, Robert Solow and Joseph Stiglitz, which I would put in the league with Milton Friedman.

In addition, The Economist took a poll of randomly chosen referees for the American Economic Review, which is a highly prestigious journal in economics and thus the referees represent the top of their trade. They are probably also a more objective source of information than the Nobel laureates because they were picked at random. The article is well-written and explains what the economists did and did not like.

More than 70% of the 56 professors who responded to our survey rate Mr Bush's first-term economic policies as bad or very bad. Fewer than 20% give positive marks to Mr Bush's second-term economic agenda, and almost six out of ten disapproved. Mr Kerry hardly got rave reviews either, but his economic plan still fared better than the president's did. In all, four out of ten professors rated Mr Kerry's economic plan as good or very good, but 27% gave it negative scores.

from: http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3262965

 

[Number 5]

You can find signatories for each side, but the majority of economists (in Nobel winners and otherwise) still favor Kerry.

Last articles complain about Kerry's "reluctance to lower trade barriers, calls for tax increases, and new federal spending proposals." The last point about the spending is a wash though since Kerry's spending proposals will be killed by the GOP dominated houses anyway, and Bush himself proposed even more spending during his RNC speech which he'll finance by borrowing even more. The trade barrier reference is about Kerry's opposition to outsourcing. But Kerry has only proposed some tax loopholes which encourage outsourcing, and most of his rhetoric on the issue is just dogmatic lipservice to gain votes. Also, Bush has imposed steel and other tariffs, so I don't see him as any better when it comes to free trade.

Then there are the tax cuts. Prescott especially is a hige advocate of cutting taxes. "When you cut tax rates, employment always goes up," he said in a phone interview Monday with The Arizona Republic. But I think we all know that employment growth has been sluggish, and in another article I heard Prescott admit that Bush's tax cuts were too small to have a big significant impact on the economy - of course he was calling for even bigger ones as the solution - but that is the minority view among economists because they are worried about the huge deficit Bush has created.

Here's the basic dilemma, tax cuts are supposed to be accompanied by spending cuts - that's the Reagan vision of lower taxes and smaller governemnt that many economists believe in, however, Bush represents big government and lower taxes, which is obviously a formula for disaster.

-5

 

[Number 5]

It was a good read and I thought it was very respectable to add that it is a London based publication. However, from an economic perspective, it was seriously lacking.

I agree. I think they decided to take a different angle from economics to say something slightly different than what has already been said by others.

-5

 

[size]

You did not answer the question. Economists DO fall into different schools of thought. Do you know the importance of Milton friedman? There certainly are going to be economist pro-Kerry policy such as Paul Krugman. However, his philospohies like many economists are not geared towards laissez-faire capitalism.

Unemployment is sluggish, but the unemployment rate is not bad. Unfortunately, many people are completely ignorant to the fact.

I should add that I am looking at things from an economic viewpoint and not a political one. However, one is capable of interpretting values differently to reflect ones beliefs.

 

[Number 5]

You did not answer the question. Economists DO fall into different schools of thought. Do you know the importance of Milton friedman? There certainly are going to be economist pro-Kerry policy such as Paul Krugman. However, his philospohies like many economists are not geared towards laissez-faire capitalism.

Unemployment is sluggish, but the unemployment rate is not bad. Unfortunately, many people are completely ignorant to the fact.

I should add that I am looking at things from an economic viewpoint and not a political one. However, one is capable of interpretting values differently to reflect ones beliefs.

last time i heard about keynes and friedman was in highschool. i seriously do not believe economists still identify themselves with one or the other. it's too simplistic. for example, whether tax cuts or government spending stimulates the economy depends on the specifics of those cuts and spending. simple keynesian models assume a flat tax whereas the US tax code is actually about 17000 pages long.

i think pretty much all economists agree that laizzes-faire capitalism is best for growth (but bad for economic equality), except when there are market failures, in which case it helps if the government intervenes to correct those failures. so to judge a given administrations economic policies, economists try to judge how successful the administrations policies were at providing incentives and correcting market failures.

the unemployment rate today is not bad by historical standards, but it hasn't improved under bush - well it's fallen a few tenths recently largely because a lot of people have stopped looking for work - that's not exactly a good sign.

-5

 

[size]

last time i heard about keynes and friedman was in highschool. i seriously do not believe economists still identify themselves with one or the other. it's too simplistic.

-5

Of course, none of it is quite so simple and I am simply using those to individuals as examples. However, many economists still identify themselves with Friedman and Keynes. Friedman's research and teachings on monetary and pricing theories are immensely important. Keynesian economics has followers and has evolved to support new thoughts in a similar direction. Economists do differ in many ways, but you may not want to believe it and that is fine. However, I know this for a fact considering that some of the individuals in those links are not strangers to me.

Again, my belief is that the unemployment rate is not bad nor is it good. I am sure you will never be convinced of this and that is fine b/c I know some people who would willing agree with you. Note, too low an unemployment rate is bad also; some unemployment is desired.

 

[Number 5]

Of course, none of it is quite so simple and I am simply using those to individuals as examples. However, many economists still identify themselves with Friedman and Keynes. Friedman's research and teachings on monetary and pricing theories are immensely important. Keynesian economics has followers and has evolved to support new thoughts in a similar direction. Economists do differ in many ways, but you may not want to believe it and that is fine. However, I know this for a fact considering that some of the individuals in those links are not strangers to me.

Again, my belief is that the unemployment rate is not bad nor is it good. I am sure you will never be convinced of this and that is fine b/c I know some people who would willing agree with you. Note, too low an unemployment rate is bad also; some unemployment is desired.

okay, maybe if you know prescott personally or are familiar with his economics, then you can clear something up for me. he belongs to the minnesota freshwater school of thought, if you absolutely want to classify it as something, which is becoming more and more dominant in US macroeconomics these days, right?

these guys believe that households act rationally, so tax cuts have no effect on them unless they believe the cuts are permanent? since governemnt spending hasn't decreased there's no reason for rational households to believe the cuts are permanent, and at least the first round of bush tax cuts had no impact on household consumption, no?

that's why many economists are unhappy with bush, namely he cut taxes but not spending, so why should anyone believe their real lifetime income has increased? people aren't dumb, if they think they have to pay more taxes later to deal with the deficit, then they'll just save the money right now.

i also personally know some economists who practice the minnesota freshwater approach, and they were delighted that prescott won the nobel prize, yet they do not agree with bush's policies because of the reasons i mentioned above. therefore i really don't think eocnomists are divided because of the different schools of thought they may belong to (assuming they really do subscribe to any one school), but they differ more because of their interpretation of bush's economic agenda and what they believe he'll do next term if elected. do you believe that prescott and other's symphathetic with his type of economics believe 4 more years of of the same as we've had so far would get the job done?

as for keynesians and monetarists, i thought that was over 30 years ago, but i dunno, are you saying they still teach that to economists at some US universities?

okay, i just got back from a halloween party pretty drunk, so sorry if that didn't make sense. maybe i'll edit this next morning.

as for the unemployment rate, i guess it's good if you think that's the best the economy could (or should) do right now, but maybe it would be better if bush hadn't gone on a spending spree, started the war with iraq, etc. who knows?

-5

 

[size]

since governemnt spending hasn't decreased there's no reason for rational households to believe the cuts are permanent, and at least the first round of bush tax cuts had no impact on household consumption, no?

as for keynesians and monetarists, i thought that was over 30 years ago, but i dunno, are you saying they still teach that to economists at some US universities?

as for the unemployment rate, i guess it's good if you think that's the best the economy could (or should) do right now, but maybe it would be better if bush hadn't gone on a spending spree, started the war with iraq, etc. who knows?

-5

I do not know Prescott.
People do behave rationally, assuming that everyone knows the rational choice is something completely different. I believe the majority is already spent. When disposable personal income increases, spending is soon to follow.
Keynes and monetarism is still taught on the collegiate level.
Please, do not assume that I am preaching that the USA economy is in perfect shape because I do not believe that. However, I do not think it is in the poor condition that many like to claim. Spending is out of control, which is bad at the current level. I also think that unemployment could be lower but I do not think it is a devistating number like many want to paint it.

 

[INFOHAZARD]

The Economist has some good info, but one should note that is is based in England.

The Economist is highly repected by US policy wonks. It is practically issued to the movers and the shakers in Washington in lieu of oh, Time or Newsweek. It's the only open publication IFAIK where the CIA places ads recruiting for the Clandestine Service. In fact I find their classifieds amazing. It's where real economists get their jobs.

I consider their cred even higher than yours, size.

As for their being British, let them make their comment on that:

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.

 

[size]

The Economist is highly repected by US policy wonks.

I was not debating this. I was simply making a statement, and I had no intention of discrediting the information provided. Now, I am finished with this discussion as I have gotten to invloved. My intentions seem to have gotten lost. Economics is not cut and dry, there are supporters of managing demand, supply siders, inflation trageters, and the list goes on. I am not sure if you read the links I provided, if not I encourage you to do so.

I simply provided additional information from economists whose research and beliefs point in another direction. This direction is the opposite of The Economist on the matter of Bush/Kerry.

 

[INFOHAZARD]

I was not debating this. I was simply making a statement, and I had no intention of discrediting the information provided. Now, I am finished with this discussion as I have gotten to invloved. My intentions seem to have gotten lost. Economics is not cut and dry, there are supporters of managing demand, supply siders, inflation trageters, and the list goes on. I am not sure if you read the links I provided, if not I encourage you to do so.

I simply provided additional information from economists whose research and beliefs point in another direction. This direction is the opposite of The Economist on the matter of Bush/Kerry.

I also understand that not all practitioners of the Dismal Science are of one mind. I think, however that many good ones endorse Kerry, including a scad of Nobel prize winners as well the editors of The Economist, a magazine that I respect much more than almost any other news source available in this country.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

that's why many economists are unhappy with bush, namely he cut taxes but not spending, so why should anyone believe their real lifetime income has increased? people aren't dumb, if they think they have to pay more taxes later to deal with the deficit, then they'll just save the money right now.

The problem is no one has the balls to cut spending .While Bush has an influence over it, it is more up to the legislature to cut government. Regardless of this, which party do you think is more likely to cut spending? All democrats do is raise taxes and increase government unless it has to do with the military. A conservative ideology would be more likely to do it. Whether or not republicans will do this remains to be seen. So far Bush has increased government spending, although it can be argued this is because we are at war. The problem is every time some one wants to cut spending all of the sudden they what to throw your grand ma out in the street, children will starve, woman will be disempowerment, or minorities will be disenfranchised and discriminated against.

i think pretty much all economists agree that laizzes-faire capitalism is best for growth (but bad for economic equality),

Economic Equality? Is that a nice word for socialism?

 

[Jeff]

Economic Equality? Is that a nice word for socialism?

(homer simpson) mmmmm.....wealth redistribution.......mmmmmmm

I think they actually prefer the term "progressive"

 

[Number 5]

The problem is no one has the balls to cut spending .While Bush has an influence over it, it is more up to the legislature to cut government. Regardless of this, which party do you think is more likely to cut spending? All democrats do is raise taxes and increase government unless it has to do with the military. A conservative ideology would be more likely to do it. Whether or not republicans will do this remains to be seen. So far Bush has increased government spending, although it can be argued this is because we are at war. The problem is every time some one wants to cut spending all of the sudden they what to throw your grand ma out in the street, children will starve, woman will be disempowerment, or minorities will be disenfranchised and discriminated against.

Economic Equality? Is that a nice word for socialism?

The editorial board of The Economist, which is considered conservative, has repeatedly labeled Kerry as a fiscal conserative and they've explained why, whereas even many republicans now refer to Bush and the neocons as big government conservatives, and please note Bush's spending has not been confined to just the wars.

Even if you don't believe Kerry wants to cut spending, you should still recognize that the GOP dominated congress will kill all his spending programs, as was the case with Clinton, while Kerry will veto republicans favorite bills that congress proposes (Bush has vetoed nothing), so Kerry will have little choice but to cut the budget deficit.

As for economic growth v. equality, it's just a fact. If you take capitalism to extremes then those that cannot support themselves will be left to starve to death, while at the other extreme we'll have communism, with no incentives and no growth. I'm quite sure most people would prefer something in the middle, which is to say that their taxes are used to provide some minimal safety net for the unemployed and uninsured. You may argue about how big that safety net should be, but it's just a personal preference more than anything else. I'd be happy with a smaller safety net myself.

-5

 

[VanillaGorilla]

You are going to have economists who support Bush and some that support Kerry. You were trying to show the Kerry is a better candidate by showing the endorsements from various economists. The problem is that other economists support Bush.
As for the article. It was an editorial which is fine but it really didn't have allot to do with economics. They seemed to give Kerry a pass on many issues such as his flip flopping. He is the most liberal senator in the united states yet they call him fiscally conservative which he is not. They put a positive spin on his Viet Nam service and his protesting the war after saying that it's a positive aspect to Kerry. The problem is his post war activities and his service in Viet Nam are mired in controversy.

The containment scheme deployed around him was unsustainable and politically damaging: military bases in holy Saudi Arabia, sanctions that impoverished and even killed Iraqis and would have collapsed. But changing the regime so incompetently was a huge mistake. By having far too few soldiers to provide security and by failing to pay Saddam's remnant army, a task that was always going to be long and hard has been made much, much harder. Such incompetence is no mere detail: thousands of Iraqis have died as a result and hundreds of American soldiers. The eventual success of the mission, while still possible, has been put in unnecessary jeopardy.

Then they say this about Kerry

John Kerry says the war was a mistake, which is unfortunate if he is to be commander-in-chief of the soldiers charged with fighting it. But his plan for the next phase in Iraq is identical to Mr Bush's, which speaks well of his judgment.

They criticize Bush for his handling of the Iraq war, then they go on to say the Kerry's plan is identical to Bush's and that is a positive thing. Excuse me? So Bush shouldn't be elected because of the war he is currently handling Iraq but Kerry will do exactly the same thing which is good.
They go on to say

That does at least place him on equal terms with his rival, Mr Kerry. With any challenger, voters have to make a leap of faith about what the new man might be like in office. What he says during the campaign is a poor guide

Well what else do you have to go on? If you can't trust what a candidate says than why vote for him? It gives the example that Bush said “a humble nation, but strong� and should eschew nation-building". Which is fair but it was also pre 9-11. The only other thing is his voting record which is the most liberal. They also have to admit he is a flip flopper on things as Iraq which they refer to as "oscillations".

On some occasions he claims to have been profoundly changed by September 11th and to be determined to seek out and destroy terrorists wherever they are hiding, and on others he has seemed to hark back to the old Clintonian view of terrorism as chiefly a question of law and order. He has failed to offer any set of overall objectives for American foreign policy, though perhaps he could hardly oppose Mr Bush's targets of democracy, human rights and liberty. But instead he has merely offered a different process: deeper thought, more consultation with allies.

On some occasions is the key word here. On some occasions he has said different things that contradict each other. I am sorry they are down playing a very important issue here..... defending our country. What they are saying is they don't know were he stands. He could go back to the policies of Clinton which doesn't work or he might not. I guess we'll have to wait for the next attack. Or to put it their way Kerry will think really deeply about it and consult with our allies that were getting paid off by Sadam.
They go after Bush for being "in hock to the Christian right" but is being in hock to the far left socialist even better?
They base much of their criticism on Bush over Guantánamo Bay. If someone is not an American citizen they don't have the same rights as a American citizen. Should American citizens be held without due process? No that is unconstitutional. However to base your vote on Guantánamo Bay and or by the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison is ridiculous. They also say

which strengthened the suspicion that the mistreatment or even torture of prisoners was being condoned

Sadam was cutting peoples hands of and raping men's wives and daughters in front of them. You simply can't compare the Abu Ghraib scandal to that.
I think the Economist should stick to economics not politics. IMO they did a piss poor job explaining why Kerry makes a better president.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

The editorial board of The Economist, which is considered conservative, has repeatedly labeled Kerry as a fiscal conserative and they've explained why, whereas even many republicans now refer to Bush and the neocons as big government conservatives, and please note Bush's spending has not been confined to just the wars.

Even if you don't believe Kerry wants to cut spending, you should still recognize that the GOP dominated congress will kill all his spending programs, as was the case with Clinton, while Kerry will veto republicans favorite bills that congress proposes (Bush has vetoed nothing), so Kerry will have little choice but to cut the budget deficit.

Number 5 we have had this conversation before. The definition of fiscally conservative is small government (low government spending,), low taxes, and a balanced budget. They like you did before are basing Kerry as a FC on only one aspect of that definition. If that's the case it's fair to call W. a FC because he cut taxes. Notice I have never referred to Bush as a FC. The Kerry method of a balanced budget to in increase taxes to balance the budget and that is it. If their is any cut in government spending it will be on the military. Other than that Kerry will not cut government spending. He wants socialized medicine for god sake. How much do you think that is going to cost? Kerry has the voting record of a tax and spend liberal. He is also been found to be the most liberal member of the senate by two nonpartisan publications. I know you like Kerry and want him to be FC but he is not. You are also assuming that the GOP will retain control of the congress.

As for economic growth v. equality, it's just a fact. If you take capitalism to extremes then those that cannot support themselves will be left to starve to death, while at the other extreme we'll have communism, with no incentives and no growth. I'm quite sure most people would prefer something in the middle, which is to say that their taxes are used to provide some minimal safety net for the unemployed and uninsured. You may argue about how big that safety net should be, but it's just a personal preference more than anything else. I'd be happy with a smaller safety net myself.

So what your saying is that economic equality is another word for socialism.The problem is we aren't simply providing a safety net anymore. That was the original intent but isn't any more. We are paying people not to work, housing for people, health insurance, needles for junkies, medical research, and billions of our money other programs. That is not a safety net.

 

[Number 5]

You are going to have economists who support Bush and some that support Kerry. You were trying to show the Kerry is a better candidate by showing the endorsements from various economists. The problem is that other economists support Bush.
As for the article. It was an editorial which is fine but it really didn't have allot to do with economics. They seemed to give Kerry a pass on many issues such as his flip flopping. He is the most liberal senator in the united states yet they call him fiscally conservative which he is not. They put a positive spin on his Viet Nam service and his protesting the war after saying that it's a positive aspect to Kerry. The problem is his post war activities and his service in Viet Nam are mired in controversy.

<snip>

I just posted this endorsement article because The Economist is a highly respected magazine with a conservative editorial board that endorsed Bush in the last election and I also thought the article was well-balanced. I did not claim that Kerry was the choice of all economists, and didn't even bring that aspect into the discussion until size posted endorsements by pro-Bush economists.

As for the content of the article and the magazine, it's not just about economics, they also offer first rate analysis about politics and current events. Also, their endorsements are not solely based on which candidate's economic platform is best. People who aren't familiar with The Economist might have misinterpreted the thread title and the idea behind the endorsement.

The magazine did critique Kerry quite a bit. They labeled him as 'the incoherent' which is a reference to his flipflops and lack of strong stances. However, Bush in their opinion, as well as mine, is 'the incompetent,' so on balance Kerry comes out ahead.

As for Iraq, they were not criticizing Bush for his overall plan for Iraq, but rather the incompetence that has been displayed in the execution of this plan.

About the other issues you brought up, the military has said Kerry deserved all his medals and that's good enough for me. I also don't care that he protested the war. And Kerry is not the most liberal senator, he's around 11th or 14th most liberal, which is about right for someone representing mass. besides i'm liberal on social issues, so Kerry's stance on abrotion, stemcell research and gay civil unions is not a problem for me.

I don't care to have another debate here about fiscal conservatism, so I'll let that go. And anyway, most presidents tend to govern from the center to represent the majority and also to win another election in four years. In fact, Bush's anti-gay stance and anti-stemcell research stance have done nothing to help him in this election.

Anyway, Kerry has a good chance of winning tomorrow, and if he does we'll see what kind of a president he'll make. If he really is as bad as you make it out to be, then he'll be tossed out after 4 years. All I know now is that Bush had his chance and he's been just too incompetent to deserve another four years.

-5

 

[PC1]

Frankly, I can't wait until this damned election is over. It's been equal parts ridiculous, disgraceful and insulting. As a conservative, I hope and pray Kerry loses. But I can understand very easily why people have the problems they do with Bush.

I hope though that the winner wins by a comfortable margin. But I'm afraid that it's going to be so close in several of the battleground states that the legal wrangling could take weeks or even months to settle. More lawyers, more charges of voter fraud, blah blah blah.

Just imagine for a minute if Kerry wins the electoral vote while Bush wins the popular vote. Is anyone ready for that?

Personally, I just can't stomach listening to ANY of the campaign rhetoric that's flying around. It's all bullshit, half-truths at best, if not outright lying by both sides. Really just disgraceful, and insulting to all of us.

Keep moving in this direction and another revolution will surely come from it.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

As for Iraq, they were not criticizing Bush for his overall plan for Iraq, but rather the incompetence that has been displayed in the execution of this plan.

Go Back and read it again. They were criticizing Bush's over all plan which includes post sadam. Yet Kerry's going to do the same thing and that's good. There is some solid logic. They are also assuming he can get the countries Sadam was paying off to help us. Yet, France and Germany have all ready said they won't help no matter who is president.

Also, their endorsements are not solely based on which candidate's economic platform is best. People who aren't familiar with The Economist might have misinterpreted the thread title and the idea behind the endorsement.

The article had very little to do with economics. Maybe they should have included more economic reasons to vote for Kerry. IMO they didn't do a very good job making a case for Kerry. It was pretty much we don't know where he stands on any issues but any things better than Bush.

About the other issues you brought up, the military has said Kerry deserved all his medals and that's good enough for me. I also don't care that he protested the war.

Again you have many people that served with him who say he is unfit to be the president and he didn't deserve many of the medals and purple hearts. He definitely has the right to protest anything he wants. Critics of his anti war actives say that he calculatingly used the anti war movement to get him into politics, that he was protesting while people that he served with were still there, and that his protesting was used by the Vietnamese on solders being held captive as psychological torture .

And Kerry is not the most liberal senator, he's around 11th or 14th most liberal, which is about right for someone representing mass. besides i'm liberal on social issues, so Kerry's stance on abortion, stemcell research and gay civil unions is not a problem for me.

That is simply not true. Kerry is the most liberal senator. Two nonpartisan publications have said this. Again I know you like him but it's true. Kerry is a classic elitist tax and spend liberal. His positions on abortion and stem cells don't make any sense. He says that he believes in the teachings of the catholic church. That means he believes life begins at conception. If you believe that life begins at conception you have to believe abortion is murder. Yet he supports a woman's right to have an abortion and in stem cell research. That is classic Kerry.......ask him a yes or no question and he'll answer yes and no. I live in Massachusetts 5 , do you? It a pretty liberal state. It's more or less all dem. except for the governor. Could it be as you seem to think that his liberal voting record has more to do with the state he his representing than his own political ideology? I doubt it and because of Kerry's inability to answer the simplest rudimentary question we will never know. All we have to go on is his voting record.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Frankly, I can't wait until this damned election is over. It's been equal parts ridiculous, disgraceful and insulting. As a conservative, I hope and pray Kerry loses. But I can understand very easily why people have the problems they do with Bush.

I hope though that the winner wins by a comfortable margin. But I'm afraid that it's going to be so close in several of the battleground states that the legal wrangling could take weeks or even months to settle. More lawyers, more charges of voter fraud, blah blah blah.

Just imagine for a minute if Kerry wins the electoral vote while Bush wins the popular vote. Is anyone ready for that?

Personally, I just can't stomach listening to ANY of the campaign rhetoric that's flying around. It's all bullshit, half-truths at best, if not outright lying by both sides. Really just disgraceful, and insulting to all of us.

Keep moving in this direction and another revolution will surely come from it.

If you think it's ugly now it's going to get worse if the election is as close as they say it is. Right now we could have post election litigation in Florida and Ohio. Many other states are close too.