"So, Mitt, what do you really believe?"; Economist editorial on Mitt Romney

[emperus]

Haven't read the Economist since undergrad. But I assumed a business publication would give Romney better coverage.

http://www.economist.com/node/21560864?frsc=dg|a

 

[PokerGuy]

From wiki:

According to former editor Bill Emmott "The Economist's philosophy has always been liberal, not conservative"

'nuff said.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_editorial_stance#cite_note-0

 

[thraashman]

From wiki:

'nuff said.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_editorial_stance#cite_note-0

However if you read the entire wiki, they've held stances all over the political spectrum. And they consider themselves extreme center. They did endorse Obama over McCain. Then again, history has proven that liberals have always been better for the economy than conservatives, so it wouldn't surprise me if they tend to lean liberal.

 

[cybrsage]

Liberal paper says bad things about conservative running for president. News at 11.

 

[PokerGuy]

However if you read the entire wiki, they've held stances all over the political spectrum. And they consider themselves extreme center. They did endorse Obama over McCain. Then again, history has proven that liberals have always been better for the economy than conservatives, so it wouldn't surprise me if they tend to lean liberal.

History has proven no such thing, only supreme idiots would be gullible enough to believe that there is a way to actually isolate all the factors and prove such a concept. I'm sure you are one of the gullible fools who would believe something like that.

They endorsed obummer before, they are part of his adoring throng of media, there is no reason anyone would be surprised that they would go after Romney.

 

[soulcougher73]

From wiki:

'nuff said.

Oh. So facts then.

 

[berzerker60]

The Economist isn't liberal like you think it means liberal, it's liberal as in English classic liberalism, which is more like libertarianism (it's not American, so it's not really appropriate to use American politics terms anyway). You really have no idea what you're talking about if you think The Economist is part of the 'liberal media.'

 

[PokerGuy]

The Economist isn't liberal like you think it means liberal, it's liberal as in English classic liberalism, which is more like libertarianism (it's not American, so it's not really appropriate to use American politics terms anyway).

Actually, it's both in this case.

 

[PokerGuy]

Oh. So facts then.

I would think that the former editor would be quite familiar with the mag, I'll take his word for it.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

So instead of actually reading the article and debating the points it makes you simply look at the author and automatically assume it's bunk.

Conservatives...

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

You guys are funny, no one uses the term "liberal" like Americans do.

So in that light:

Liberal paper says bad things about Republican running for president. News at 11.

Fixed for accurary.

 

[Bowfinger]

So instead of actually reading the article and debating the points it makes you simply look at the author and automatically assume it's bunk.

Conservatives...

Of course. What else can he do? Leaving the bubble can only lead to having one's faith challenged by inconvenient information and ideas. Weak convictions are much too vulnerable for that. It is far better to remain hidden within the safety of that echo chamber, so one hears only that which reinforce one's faith. His masters will interpret the Economist article for him, and tell him why it is wrong.

 

[Bowfinger]

You guys are funny, no one uses the term "liberal" like Americans do.

So in that light:

Internationally respected paper says accurate (but inconvenient) things about Republican running for president. News at 11.

Fixed for accurary.

Fixed more.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

This thread is pretty laughable.

The Economist is now a liberal drag? Give me a break you loonies.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Apparently he believes the lies in his campaign commercials:

Multiple independent fact-checkers have said that Romney's ads are false, but Romney maintains they are correct.

"Well, we believe it's accurate," Romney told USA Today, in a portion of the interview that was provided to The Huffington Post.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...re-waivers_n_1832871.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

 

[thraashman]

Apparently he believes the lies in his campaign commercials:



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...re-waivers_n_1832871.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

Shocking. The man is quite possibly running the most dishonest campaign in American history, can't say I'm surprised that he even believes his own lies now.

 

[blankslate]

According to former editor Bill Emmott "The Economist's philosophy has always been liberal, not conservative"

How does he mean liberal?

You know of course that liberalism has a different connotation in Europe with regards to economic policy don't you?

It refers to a more laissez faire or free market economy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism

As far as their social views they're not liberal. Maybe center right.

 

[yllus]

This thread is pretty laughable.

The Economist is now a liberal drag? Give me a break you loonies.

Yeah, I've seen this refutation of their pieces before and it's never made sense. They've been pro-Sarkozy, pro-Cameron and pro-austerity, but one convenient mention of, "No they're actually liberal!" and there's no longer a need to debate their words on their merit. Ridiculous and totally indicative of why American "conservatives" are getting a bad rap for being anti-intellectual.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I supposed we'll just have to vote Romney in and see what we get. Sorta like what we did with Obama.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

So long as Congress remains obstructionist I don't see either Romney or Obama getting anything done. It's amazing how they've escaped criticism throughout all of this.

 

[jackstar7]

I supposed we'll just have to vote Romney in and see what we get. Sorta like what we did with Obama.

Another endorsement for the devil you don't know.

 

[nehalem256]

I supposed we'll just have to vote Romney in and see what we get. Sorta like what we did with Obama.

We will have to elect him to see what he believes.

Kinda like we had to pass obamacare to see what was in it

 

[Pens1566]

Liberal Economist. I lol'd.

 

[sunzt]

From wiki:

'nuff said.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_editorial_stance#cite_note-0

so unless it has a conservative bias then it's not worth reading or trustworthy enough for you?

 

[sunzt]

They do agree with many of Mitts views, but they just don't like his flip-flopping. Even conservatives and GOP agree he's a flopper.

this newspaper finds much to like in the history of this uncharismatic but dogged man, from his obvious business acumen to the way he worked across the political aisle as governor to get health reform passed and the state budget deficit down. We share many of his views about the excessive growth of regulation and of the state in general in America, and the effect that this has on investment, productivity and growth. After four years of soaring oratory and intermittent reforms, why not bring in a more businesslike figure who might start fixing the problems with America’s finances?