The Volokh Conspiracy - The Economist switches from Bush to Kerry:

The Volokh Conspiracy - The Economist switches from Bush to Kerry:

As Stuart Benjamin noted for the Volokh-types, this is first notable in the editors' switch from their position endorsing George W 4 years ago. Here's their key paragraph on W:

"When Mr Bush decided to frame his foreign policy in the sort of language and objectives previously associated with Woodrow Wilson, John Kennedy or Ronald Reagan, he was bound to be greeted with cynicism. Yet he was right to do so. To paraphrase a formula invented by his ally, Tony Blair, Mr Bush was promising to be “tough on terrorism, tough on the causes of terrorism”, and the latter he attributed to the lack of democracy, human rights and opportunity in much of the world, especially the Arab countries. To call for an effort to change that lamentable state of affairs was inspiring and surely correct. The credibility of the call was enhanced by this month's Afghan election, and may in future be enhanced by successful and free elections in Iraq. But that remains ahead, and meanwhile Mr Bush's credibility has been considerably undermined not just by Guantánamo but also by two big things: by the sheer incompetence and hubristic thinking evident in the way in which his team set about the rebuilding of Iraq, once Saddam Hussein's regime had been toppled; and by the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, which strengthened the suspicion that the mistreatment or even torture of prisoners was being condoned."

and on Kerry:

"Like those two previous challengers, Mr Kerry has shaped many of his positions to contrast himself with the incumbent. That is par for the course. What is more disconcerting, however, is the way those positions have oscillated, even as the facts behind them have stayed the same. In the American system, given Congress's substantial role, presidents should primarily be chosen for their character, their qualities of leadership, for how they might be expected to deal with the crises that may confront them, abroad or at home. Oscillation, even during an election campaign, is a worrying sign."

Beautiful writing--a piece that is critical, demanding, and pierces the candidates to their core. Bravo for The Economist, as usual, a tremendous piece. They seem to hit all of the key issues and even some that go neglected. Worth your full read.

Actual Endorsement from my favorite news magazine


PS: Humor for the day--some clever Republicans (I think) dressed our George Washington statue outside the library in posters declaring that "This George W didn't win the popular vote EITHER!"

Also, interesting tidbit: The Economist is an unabashedly British news magazine, but it's American circulation (450,000) is three times that of it's circulation in the UK--and 45% of the world total.