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
http://www.economist.com/node/21560864?frsc=dg|a
According to former editor Bill Emmott "The Economist's philosophy has always been liberal, not conservative"
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.
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).
Oh. So facts then.
Liberal paper says bad things about Republican running for president. News at 11.
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.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...
Fixed more.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.
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.
Apparently he believes the lies in his campaign commercials:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...re-waivers_n_1832871.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
According to former editor Bill Emmott "The Economist's philosophy has always been liberal, not conservative"
This thread is pretty laughable.
The Economist is now a liberal drag? Give me a break you loonies.
I supposed we'll just have to vote Romney in and see what we get. Sorta like what we did with Obama.
I supposed we'll just have to vote Romney in and see what we get. Sorta like what we did with Obama.
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?