This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
"The Economist" Endorses Obama For President
And for a second there we thought financial publications were supposed to at least pretend they are impartial. It appears that is not the case. Now we eagerly await to learn whom Playboy, the National Enquirer, and TMZ endorse...
From the Economist:
Our American endorsement
Which one?
America could do better than Barack Obama; sadly, Mitt Romney does not fit the bill
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.
....
The devil we know
We very much hope that whichever of these men wins office will prove our pessimism wrong. Once in the White House, maybe the Romney of the mind will become reality, cracking bipartisan deals to reshape American government, with his vice-president keeping the headbangers in the Republican Party in line. A re-elected President Obama might learn from his mistakes, clean up the White House, listen to the odd businessman and secure a legacy happier than the one he would leave after a single term. Both men have it in them to be their better selves; but the sad fact is that neither candidate has campaigned as if that is his plan.
As a result, this election offers American voters an unedifying choice. Many of The Economist’s readers, especially those who run businesses in America, may well conclude that nothing could be worse than another four years of Mr Obama. We beg to differ. For all his businesslike intentions, Mr Romney has an economic plan that works only if you don’t believe most of what he says. That is not a convincing pitch for a chief executive. 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. So this newspaper would stick with the devil it knows, and re-elect him.
Full article here.
And here is whom The Economist has endorsed in the past, just for a few extra giggles:
- 1980: Ronald Reagan, Republican Party, "That, perhaps, is the most pressing reason why so many of America's friends want, unusually in a presidential election, to see a change at the top, even one laden with risk. We agree with them."
- 1984: No endorsement
- 1988: No endorsement, "Oh dear!"
- 1992: Bill Clinton, Democratic Party, "Despite the risks, the possibilities are worth pursuing. Our choice falls on him."
- 1996: Bob Dole, Republican Party, "We choose him on the assumption that the real Bob Dole is the one who spent three decades on Capitol Hill, not this year's dubious character; that he would be more prudent than his economic plan implies. That is an awkward basis for an endorsement. But the choice is a lousy one."
- 2000: George W. Bush, Republican Party, after John McCain was defeated in the Republican primaries. At the time, the newspaper hoped George W. Bush could transcend partisanship, but now the newspaper describes him as the "partisan-in-chief."
- 2004: John Kerry, Democratic Party, “The incompetent George W. Bush or the incoherent John Kerry”
- 2008: Barack Obama, Democratic Party, "He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and discipline than his opponent. Whether he can fulfil his immense potential remains to be seen. But Mr Obama deserves the presidency."
- 2012: Barack Obama, Democratic Party, "Mr Obama has dragged America’s economy back from the brink of disaster, and has made a decent fist of foreign policy. So this newspaper would stick with the devil it knows, and re-elect him.
- 23286 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -


Write in your preferred third party candidate and vote only on local issues. Damn them all to hell.
Obama and Romney are puppets on strings.
This and other political "media endorsements" are the openly "fuck yeah we manipulate the facts" proof being thrown right into our faces. Yet the retarded public will continue to see the "news" from these bought and paid for hacks and take it as fact.
fuck the MSM.
America is fucked. During the debates not one person asked either candidate why no major Ceo cfo coo etc has been prosecuted for skull fucking the govt and the American people. Not one.
Blame Candy [Ass] Crowley...
The vulgarity suggests you lean Democrat...
How about Franklin Raines the big shot of Democrat infested Congressionally run formerly private capital GSE, as an executive to, rhetorically only now, lynch?
How about the mistress of disaster from the Clinton administration, the lady who set up the information curtain between CIA and FBI pre-9/11 (A trillion dollar disaster) who went on to be a mover in the GSE's(a multi-trillion dollar disaster that may well have ended the republic, once the historians are able to look back on it).
How 'bout Barney Frank and Chris Dodd?
About young ACORN lawyer Barack Obama, you know that unknown lefty activists who helped Reno/Clinton put hooks into Carter-era CRA, to put the big legal stick behind the bankers back when, before Congress and the GSE put the carrot in front of them?
These were THE cause of easy money from the Fed flowing into real estate assets rather than some other asset class with less enormous, global economy wrecking bubble potential.
What Wall Street and the financials wants, they gets. They just dial in their reosat the desired victory margin. I thinks they want another Gore/Bush extra constitutional abuse to further divide the meandering herd.
Got popcorn?
WHy yes, it's democracy. The greatest invention by mankind since sliced bread. Go vote... It's humorous to me that the economist says that America can do better than Barack Obama, implying Mitt Romney is actually worse with no real explanation, well you only have garbage to vote for, the assumption you gotta vote for it.
Playboy is still endorsing Bill Clinton.
National Enquirer and TMZ are endorsing Business Insider. All three use the same business model.
Is the model they're using hot? Does she look good?
lol.
I'm not budging until Whoopi Goldberg endorses someone...
To get Whoopi's endorsement, you have to promise to plant a new ugly tree in her yard. She broke off all the branches of the old one when she fell from the top of it.
The lesser of two evils my American friends, is still evil.
Vote third parties, or do not vote at all. Its the same over here mind. And all I can see in the near future is armed, violent protest with extreme predjudice as the only viable opposition, across all devloped nations.
My mind is at a loss as how else we can stop these insane bastards from destroying us before we destroy them.
Imbeciles hooked on Soetoro spunk...
4 out of 5 dentists recommended Trident. The fifth guy recommended Obama for healthy teeth and gums.
However...
Choosy Mom's chose JIF and that rich guy with magic underwear.
Fuck the illuminati and the global elite and the Royal Houses of Europe, blue-bloods and all those other scum bag sun-worshippers.
.
This planet has been totally hijacked.
.
Dont sit and tell me in 2012 - we are progressing...in fact, quite the opposite.
Obama won a Nobel Peace prize too...
As a result, this election offers American voters an unedifying choice. Many of The Economist’s readers, especially those who run businesses in America, may well conclude that nothing could be worse than another four years of Mr Satan. We beg to differ. For all his businesslike intentions, Mr Lucifer has an economic plan that works only if you don’t believe most of what he says. That is not a convincing pitch for a chief executive. And for all his shortcomings, Mr Satan has dragged America’s economy back from the brink of disaster, and has made a decent fist of foreign policy. So this newspaper would stick with the devil it knows, and re-elect him.
Fixed it for you. May your newspaper DIAF.
This justifies my decision to cancel my subscription to the Economist last year as it has increasingly become more irelevant. Ms Rotschild I believe sits on the board of directors of this venerable publication.
Last year ? I cancelled my subscription 10 years ago. Glad you have finally woken up, however.
Obamabucks and Bailouts for The Economist, I suppose. Maybe Obama will put in a good word for them at the Nobel commission. Surely corporations are people and can therefore win.
So! The Rothschilds are publicly supporting Obama!
Just as thery supported Vladimir Lenin's journey to Russia and the Boleshiviks!
What a surprise.
So are the electronic voting machines....
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/more-electronic-voting-machines-changing-romney-votes-to-obama-we-looked-into-it-and-heres-what-a-vendor-told-us/
speaking of a baised rag...
given the choice between obamma and the unelectable ...
not much conviction in the argument to re-elect Obama is there? The devil you know? No truer words written. Most if not all business owners fear Obama and the economist comes to the conclusion that he'll be good for business? You really have to suspend reality to come to this conclusion.
The Economist....? Who reads that anymore ? Are they still in business?
One can go online and read the NYT to get the same, well written claptrap.
How are the policies endorsed by the ascot wearing feckin' pommies at the Economist working in Europe right now?
3rd world spiraling deficits without spending on a substantial defense budget.
For over thirty years the Economist has been Thatcherite, Reaganista and GWBushist. It supported Clinton and Blair as continuators of the neo-con financial policies of their predecessors; as soft left, phony-crony, no ballsy leaders.
It even supported the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, as a better of two evils.
It is now finding itself supporting the Obammy/Fed strategy to print, as its sees no OTHER alternative to save the UK/USA's banking system, the biggest hush-hush scam that nobody wants to admit to; inspite of 2008 collapse of capital markets and Liborgate/Euro crisis signals that these banks are still rabid with rabies, and are bringing down the nation states crony to their unsaveable cause.
It is now caught in this crossfire of private capital demise and sovereigns 'pants down to ankles' surprise. The general feeling in Europe is confirmed by the Economist's alignment : Romney is at best irrelevant at worst dangerous, as Obama is owned by the banksta clique and that's what counts from their neo-Thatcherite perspective.
Nailed it falak, +1. And that these guys have the pretense to claim stewardship of enlightened rationalism, libertarianism, what a farce. Apologists for (utterly debauched) power, that's all they are.
Well I don't know who will win this election, but I sure as hell know who will lose.
Ain't we ain't even on the ballot!
pods
The Economist were never going to back Romney, they are essentially like our Conservative party in the UK , people who pretend to be free market capitalists but in essence are simply espousing socialism
Well I just got done voting , and I wrote in Ron Paul. It was the first time in all my years of never missing a vote that I didn't vote for one of the two official choices.
"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."
WHAT???
I would go all the way with: WTF?!?
So, I guess this will help Obama carry England.
"Four years ago,The Economist endorsed Barack Obama for the White House with enthusiasm."
WHY?
On that note, why would anyone endorse either of these ass-clowns?
Let's not kid ourselves, it only really matters who Bilderberg and the CFR endorse... In "close" elections, the algo's in the electronic voting machines decide who the next president is... That or a corrupt supreme court...
Another shit-and-piss publication that's not worth a minute of your time. This one is right up there with Popular Science lying about the twin towers.
And don't forget the horrendous job done by National Geographic, clearly disproving all of the "conspiracy theories" in a single thirty minute episode. Unbelievable. MSM shills, blatantly throwing it in our faces. What rags!
You are correct Orly.
And not only in the downsized, photo-heavy current National Geographic rag that is a mockery of what it once was, but most especially on their cable television channel, which is now apparently nothing but a nonstop running forum to mock, denigrate, ridicule and demonize every sort of anti-establishment, free-thinking American ---- gun owners, preppers, marijuana growers and users, and "hoarders", all of whom now have dedicated NatGeo series devoted to exposing the "crime" and "horror" that is existing or thinking outside of the box.
Presactomundo, akak.
History Channel bites ass as well...
The History Channel used to be not too bad, actually --- then it seemed to suddenly turn into "The History of War Channel" post-9/11. Lately, it is nothing but pure drivel and so-called "reality" garbage. As is almost everything on television nowadays.
Sadly, The Economist - just like the FT - both turned Left a few years ago and embraced Keynesian economics and the Blair/Brown economic lunacies of tax/borrow/spend/spend/spend followed by boom-boom/mega-bust.
that rag is nothing like the magazine I used to read 15 years ago.
bunch of kiddie hacks, and this article proves just that.
Honest question. What publication out there is actually balanced? Which one is worth a subscription?
What pubilcation D Billy ? Why ZH of course! Now send in your voluntary contribution.
When shown a picture of the two, my dog endorsed Obama too.
Which end of your dog gave the endorsemsnt?
I just voted with my feet and cancelled my subscription ... AND ... got a credit for the unused balance!
So ... if they lose a few million subscribers, maybe it will teach them to shut their mouths and worry about news and information rather than politics and trying to tag along a bullshit rockstar wanna-be loser.
Doesn't seem to be working with CNN, Fox News, nytimes, Time Magazine, David Letterman etc, ad nauseum.
Nice on the credit.
I am now convinced Romney exists to make Obama look good.
People who would not vote for Obama again feeling betrayed after 2008 are now absolutely voting for BO as he is the Anti-Romney.
Witnessing the political discourse of these "consumer-voters" as I call them is silly at best and sad at worst.
Let's ignore everything Obama has done, even though it's largely a continuation of failed Bush policy that everyone hated then because Romney is worse.
You have the ignorant masses who on a superficial level hate Obama voting for Romney, and you have the people who consider themselves "high information voters" voting for Obama. Both camps are entrenched at this point and we being played like a fiddle.
When the powers that be own BOTH parties--- what's the point?
It doesn't matter - either Obama or Romney will continue the systematic dismantling of the Constitution and Bill of Rights and the deliberate impoverishment and ultimately the re-enslavement of the American people. And realistically, revolution is now impossible. It is over.
Playboy endorses: Pussy Galore
The National Enquirer endorses: Honey Boo Boo
TMZ endorses: Cee Lo Green
"Mr Obama has dragged America’s economy back from the brink of disaster, ..."
--- says the __economist__
No wonder, economists are getting the Krug-ugliest names these days.
Strange, would an American newsweekly "endorse" or even talk about "vote for" a PM candidat of the UK?
The British "The Economist" does not have a vote.
How long is the line for publications committing suicide by politics?
Somalia could do better than Barrack Obama.
The Economist has always had a conservative, pro-west perspective ever since its founding by Tory, Walter bagehot. But the word conservative has a different definition in amurka than elsewhere, so the label misleads.
All of that said, it isn't that The Economist likes Obama; rather, they correctly point to the utter failure of the Republicrats to offer a better alternative. It really defies reason to claim Romney is better than Obama.
Rs themselves can barely tolerate him. Of course, the R cause may have been hampered by the delusion that just because they hated Obama, they could run anyone with a pulse against him. Recall, too, that at one time Michelle Bachman was the favorite, then Herman Cain, then Rick Santorum.
The Republicrats simply did not ever offer a better choice.
The clever misspelling of words lends great weight to your complex and nuanced analysis.
And that jplot is exactly the Economists view. Nice parroting you stupid feckin pos.There can be no choice worse than Obama given all the names in your response.
A beetr alternative? Look at any name in a feckin midwestern state phone book.
Big deal. 90% of Europe as well as Chavez and most all of the other commie countries endorse Obama. Obviously, given the quality of these countries economies and social freedoms, we should just surrender to their wishes and fall in line. Afterall..it is all about compromise and getting along with our neighbors. Lets just dumb our ass down a bit so they don't need to feel so inferior. What a grand world it will be when all of the "geniuses" are in charge of everything. I never can figure out what to have for dinner anyway. Maybe they will have a 900 number for me to call when i get all confused.
Well, Sandy declared Obama a total disaster...or was it the other way around?
I read carefully through all the responses and respect everyone's opinions regardless how wrong they are (sarc).
Whether Obama, Romney or Johnson wins there's one thing that nobody mentioned:
!@#$%^&* YOU The Economist
I read the Economist until 99 or so when they supported Al Whore. Dumped the rag and told them why. Used to have great in-depth suject studies.
Al Gore is right in their wheelhouse. Limousine liberalism, "global warming" scam, gun control wankery, Rubinomics, world government rah rah rah, "statesman Henry Kissinger." That waxy paper of theirs isn't even good for lighting a fire.
If Gore had won, no 911, no Iraq war, no debt, and surplus
You do realize that the national debt went up every year clinton was president, despite his accounting tricks.
A BUDGET surplus does not exclude that the BUDGET included deficit spending.
I made a Budget this year, that included borrowing $20,000 for a new car, when all is said and done I wound up with an extra $100 dollars, a surplus, but I still incurred a $20,000 loan for the car.
Sorry to go on and on, but that is the dumbest comment.
This will cost the Economist far more than it will benefit Obama.
The Economist Group...
shareholders including the Cadbury, Rothschild, Schroder and Agnelli families (50%)
"The Economist" magazine is a mouth piece for Rothschilds bankers...yup they are still around.
Hence their fondess for unaccountable world government, socialism for the rich, and "financial innovation."
The economist has always been a pretentious bloviator of left wing ideology primarily for european consumption and those americans why fancy themselfes quite sophisticated in international affairs.
When they start accurately predicting the outcome of economic policies, it will stop being a wank rag of european sheeple.
It may come as a surprise to many that Soviet Communist Party leader Iosif Stalin ran campaigns for electoral political office in the USSR — not once but twice. Not surprisingly, Stalin won both times. The document here is the text of Stalin's one and only "stump speech" from his first electoral "race." The institution to which Stalin aspired was the Supreme Soviet, a large bicameral parliament created by the so-called "Stalin Constitution" of 1936.
From the early 1930s the Soviet Union's calculated and systematic leadership cult was in full swing. Official ideology proclaimed the achievement of socialism to be at hand and a modification of the political superstructure in the form of expanded socialist democracy was deemed by the party officialdom to be the order of the day. Competetive races were strongly hinted at. Even the Great Stalin would run for office, it was declared. This is not to say that Stalin's race would be anything other than a formulaic pre-ordained vote of confidence, a plan made readily apparent when it was announced that Stalin had been nominated by each of the 3,346 electoral districts as their desired deputy. As Stalin could stand for election in only one precinct, the central Moscow district, already deemed to be the "Stalin Electoral District," was chosen, for reasons which seem apparent.
During the first part of December, the top leaders of the Soviet state had each made their own public speeches in the nation's capital as part of the electoral festivities. On Saturday night, December 11, 1937, it was at last the supreme leader's turn. A "special meeting" was held in the ornate Bolshoi Theater with Nikita Sergeivich Khrushchev, head of the Moscow party organization, serving as chairman. Preliminary speeches of nomination were made by two factory workers, a doctor, a teacher, and a housewife while top party leaders sat in the audience and applauded these modest oratorical efforts by these chosen representatives of the masses. Called to the rostrum to speak by Khrushchev, Stalin was met by an extended ovation punctuated by what seems to have been premeditated shouts of adulation. Clad in his trademarked khaki tunic, Stalin delivered a rather sedate and at times folksy 25 minute address to the carefully selected throng of "electors," a speech interrupted some 30 times by applause. The speech was almost certainly broadcast by radio and was recorded and reproduced as a set of five 78 rpm records. The text of this "Speech Delivered at a Meeting of Voters of the Stalin Electoral Area" was quickly published in Moscow in pamphlet form. An English translation soon followed, produced by the main state publishing house under the imprint of the "Co-operative Publishing Society of Foreign Workers in the USSR."
First of all, I would like to express my thanks (applause) to the electors for the confidence they have shown in me. (Applause.)
I have been nominated as candidate, and the Election Commission of the Stalin Area of the Soviet capital has registered my candidature. This, comrades, is an expression of great confidence. Permit me to convey my profound Bolshevik gratitude for this confidence that you have shown in the Bolshevik Party of which I am a member, and in me personally as a representative of that Party. (Loud applause.)
I know what confidence means. It naturally lays upon me new and additional duties and, consequently, new and additional responsibilities. Well, it is not customary among us Bolsheviks to refuse responsibilities. I accept them willingly. (Loud and prolonged applause.)
For my part, I would like to assure you, comrades, that you may safely rely on Comrade Stalin. (Loud and sustained cheers. A voice: "And we all stand for Comrade Stalin!") You may take it for granted that Comrade Stalin will be able to discharge his duty to the people (applause), to the working class (applause), to the peasantry (applause) and to the intelligentsia. (Applause.)
Further, comrades, I would like to congratulate you on the occasion of the forthcoming national holiday, the day of the elections to the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union. (Loud applause.) The forthcoming elections are not merely elections, comrades, they are really a national holiday of our workers, our peasants and our intelligentsia. (Loud applause.) Never in the history 0f the world have there been such really free and really democratic elections—never! History knows no other example like it. (Applause.) The point is not that our elections will be universal, equal, secret and direct, although that fact in itself is of great importance. The point is that our universal elections will be carried out as the freest elections and the most democratic of any country in the world.
This sounds so familiar, yet i just can't place where i heard it. Regardless. we should continue to move FORWARD!
I think O-Phone gave that same speech just last week.
Great minds think alike.
Good. Let him run in GB. He's still a citizen, after all.
Economist: "Let's see: A POTUS Candidate who will ignore Wall Street Fraud......or a President who will ignore Wall Street Fraud.........damn, I dunno who to choose!"
"A man who once personified hope and centrism set a new low by unleashing attacks on Mitt Romney even before the first Republican primary."
This was a good strategy on Obama's part. Instead of waiting to be made a punching bag by the Republicans, he struck preemptively. There's lots of reasons for disliking Obama. That Obama recognized his opponent was nothing but an empty suit whose whole campaign would be negative and beat him to the punch, isn't one of them.
"Carpe diem.
Rejoice while you are still alive
Enjoy the day
Live life to the fullest
Make the most of what you have
It's later than you think " -Horace, Ancient Roman Poet.
So what is a good alternative to the Economist? The Financial Times, which is also owned by Pearson, Foreign Affairs...what?
Orwellian totalitarians endorse Orwellian totalitarian.
Is anyone surprised?
I endorse The Economist for my toilet paper. Anybody have any back issue to spare?
The devil you know? Classic argument for acceptance of mediocrity.
Just when I thought we had agreed that, no matter who wins we are fucked, stories start pouring about who endorses who. And they draw hundreds of comments.
The Economist has always been a Keynesian rag.