This is a well-balanced and interesting take on the two choices. I think even Romney supporters will agree with most of the article -- not the endorsement of course.
The Economist Endorses Obama
By rooemoore Follow Thu, 1 Nov 2012, 3:34pm 406 views 4 comments
In Ross CA 94957
Watch (1) Share
Quote
Permalink Like (1) Dislike Viewing Comments 1-4 of 4 Last » See most liked comments
|
rooemoore is moderator of this thread. |
Follow
Befriend (13)
102 threads
3,763 comments
Terms conservative or liberal have been used too loosely lately. They have no meaning anymore in the media.
Follow
Befriend (5)
31 threads
2,239 comments
Premium
The article makes an amusing contrast between Reagan the great communicator v Romnesia "the great flipflopper."
It politely avoids mentioning the awkward fact that his party has become "an apocalyptic cult."
Clearly, as a major international newspaper with choices effectively limited to the incumbent and the other major party, The Economist made the right choice. As a voter, I still think the independent candidates deserve consideration. I understand people who say we have to choose the lesser of two evils, but sometimes I just can't limit myself to that, and it's better to vote for something than not to vote at all.
Follow
Befriend (5)
31 threads
2,239 comments
Premium
Melmakian says
The quote was, "the great flipflopper." Quotation marks matter. Also, the exclusion of indepedent parties from the presidential debates was decided by the corporation that owns the debates; the corporation is owned equally by both major parties, which are owned equally by other corporations.
Follow
Befriend
6 threads
646 comments
Pleasanton, CA
All in all, the Economist opinion was well balanced, but scarcely a ringing endorsement of Obama.
It is hard to disagree that whack a fringe Republicans give conservatives a bad name.
"The devil they know" isn't exactly saying they love Obama.