"The Economist" endorses Kerry

[bloodhound]

read full article here

 

http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=3329802

 

"YOU might have thought that, three years after a devastating terrorist attack on American soil, a period which has featured two wars, radical political and economic legislation, and an adjustment to one of the biggest stockmarket crashes in history, the campaign for the presidency would be an especially elevated and notable affair. If so, you would be wrong. This year's battle has been between two deeply flawed men: George Bush, who has been a radical, transforming president but who has never seemed truly up to the job, let alone his own ambitions for it; and John Kerry, who often seems to have made up his mind conclusively about something only once, and that was 30 years ago. But on November 2nd, Americans must make their choice, as must The Economist. It is far from an easy call, especially against the backdrop of a turbulent, dangerous world. But, on balance, our instinct is towards change rather than continuity: Mr Kerry, not Mr Bush."

 

 

so far Kerry has far more newspaper endorsments than Bush. Dont know if that means anything

[Mad Mardigan]

More crap for me to burn this winter. Lets elect Micheal Badnarik as president, a much better canidate.

[budullewraagh]

so you're completely discrediting the economist? feeling a little pompous?

[Ophiolite]

Yes, do be cautious MM. In the UK, criticising The Economist is slightly more serious than accusing the Queen of armed robbery.

[Douglas]

so far Kerry has far more newspaper endorsments than Bush. Dont know if that means anything

 

B'Hound, I think every major newspaper in the country has endorsed Kerry, except perhaps the "wall street journal", plus, he has the 3 major networks backing him.

[Pangloss]

Well no, a number of major-city papers endorse Bush, but it's not really important.

 

The fact that The Economist endorsed Kerry is hardly news, folks. They've been tacitly (and not so tacitly) endorsing Kerry for a year now.

[blike]

Suprise suprise. I could have told you who they would endorse months ago.

[bloodhound]

I was quite suprised actually.. cos i have been following them since ages... and they have been always supportive of american policy in iraq. slightly less so at home

[Douglas]

Well no, a number of major-city papers endorse Bush, but it's not really important.

I should have specified, by major newspapers, I meant the NY times, Washington post, L.A. times, Chicago sun etc. etc.

http://www.indolink.com/displayArticleS.php?id=102404112012

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&tab=nn&ie=UTF-8&q=major+newspapers+who+support+kerry&btnG=Search+News

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&tab=nn&ie=UTF-8&q=major+newspapers+who+support+kerry&btnmeta%3Dsearch%3Dsearch=Search+the+Web

[Pangloss]

I think the real tell-tale here is the total number of subscribers repretented by those endorsements. What's that, maybe 1-2% of the population?

 

It just goes to show how few people read the paper anymore.

[Douglas]

I think the real tell-tale here is the total number of subscribers repretented by those endorsements. What's that' date=' maybe 1-2% of the population?

 

It just goes to show how few people read the paper anymore.[/quote']

Good point.

[john5746]

The NASCAR endorsements will make a bigger impact.

[Mad Mardigan]

Jeff Burton announced on John Boy and Billy he is endorcing Bush. I would say 90% of Nascar Fans support Bush. Why doesnt somebody do a poll with them at the upcoming race, oh yeah, forgot Micheal Moores brother is trying to do a doc on it and racism with the Confederate Flag. PEOPLE, IT DOESNT REPRESENT HATE, STATE RIGHTS!!!.

[john5746]

I mentioned it because what do car drivers or sports stars or movie stars or movie producers know about politics anyway. Yet they have more influence than the Economist.

 

The Confederate Flag? I live in the South. The confederacy was a bad idea, I am glad it lost and it is history. The bottom line is that the flag represented a nation whose main theme was to promote slavery. You can be proud of southern heritage without that symbol.

[Ophiolite]

I think the real tell-tale here is the total number of subscribers repretented by those endorsements. What's that' date=' maybe 1-2% of the population?

 

It just goes to show how few people read the paper anymore.[/quote'](My wife drove my car off the road last night. I mention this lest you detect any piss taking in this nit-picking post - I'm just lashing out mindlessly)

 

Washington Post - 0.8 million

NY Times - 1.1 million

Philadelphia Enqurer - 0.4 million

LA Times - 1.5 million

Chicago Sun-Times - 0.3 million

 

Total circulation: 4.1 million

Total readership: 6.1 million [Newspapers are read, on average, by more than one person. I have used a conservative multiplier of 1.5]

 

Total US registered voters: 140 million

Total who will vote: 73 million

 

Percent of voters who will have read one of the aforementioned journals 8%. (Somewhat more than your postulated 1% or 2%)

 

But more significantly I would have thought a high percentage of the readers of most (all) of these publications would have been predisposed to Kerry, so an endorsement would have little effect.

[Mad Mardigan]

The Confederate Flag? I live in the South. The confederacy was a bad idea, I am glad it lost and it is history. The bottom line is that the flag represented a nation whose main theme was to promote slavery. You can be proud of southern heritage without that symbol.

 

Slavery would of ended soon after after the invention of the cotton gin anyways. Machines are cheaper then people, simple productivity and maintenance. Its just another propaganda film by the Moore family, btw this guy has a different name, I guess that make Moore a B_____D.

[budullewraagh]

mardigan, you really have no idea what youre talking about. the confederate flag is a symbol of hatred and racism and "rebellion".

 

the federalists saved our nation, as otherwise britain would have waged war against us 20-25 years after the revolution. as well, the republicans had the idea that individual states with almost no federal government was a good idea. well, our credit after the revolution was so poor that we could only borrow money from the dutch and french, and at incredibly high interest rates. jefferson debated with hamilton, but eventually washington chose hamilton's plan of assumption and the debt was eliminated shortly. this gained respect in europe, and they lifted their semi-boycotts on american goods.

 

the republicans were pissed at assumption and the outcome of the whiskey rebellion, and the problems slavery was having in congress, and so they opted out of the union. it was hardly a "state rights" issue

[Pangloss]

Sorry to hear about your wife, Ophiolite, I hope she's okay. Tell her to stop driving on the left side of the road, that's your problem right there. ;-)

 

Slavery would of ended soon after after the invention of the cotton gin anyways.

 

Actually, as I understand it, it's the other way around. Slavery was on its way out until the gin *revived* it, giving the plantation owners something to do with those slaves (collecting cotton to put in the gin).

[Diedra Moose]

 

Pangloss is absolutely right. Because of the gin, more cotton could be produced more effectively...but you still needed someone to pick it. The invention o fthe gin and other machines that helped process cotton made slavery even WORSE than it had been before! For instance the Fugitive Slave Act was strengthened and made it possible for slave owners to sue to get slaves back who had escaped to the free North. This forced escaping slaves to have to flee all the way to Canada. Rewards for escaped slaves became higher as well, leading to the practice known as "selling down the river," as seen in Huck Finn...

 

I live in a rural part of Florida, and let me tell you what: around here the flag is all about hate and nothing about heritage. I've seen bumper stickers saying things like "If I'd known this would happen, I'd have picked my own cotton." The people displaying those stickers wouldn't have even had cotton during the time of slavery. They most likely would have been the poor whites who were victimized and disenfranchised by the rich whites. Poor whites were as big of victims of slavery as blacks were.

[Pangloss]

(Only thing you're missing there is a closed-bracket on the first "quote" tag, by the way.)

 

Yeah that was the case when I was growing up in suburban/rural north Georgia in the 1970s. Well put.

 

Most of those soldiers who died for the Confederacy in the Civil War weren't slave owners, just kids trapped in a bad war, and I have no problem remembering them with honor and respect. But that's not what the confederate flag is a symbol of, even to the people who wave it.

[Diedra Moose]

But that's not what the confederate flag is a symbol of, even to the people who wave it.

 

Sometimes I jsut have to wonder...

[Ophiolite]

To try to return somewhat to Bloodhound's original theme I raise the question, "Which is the biggest influence on voters: newspaper edndorsements, media reporting, presidential debates, views of friends and family, prejudices and habit?"

 

Or, if you wish to stay on the amended theme, "To what extent does the divisiveness of the Civil War remain in the fabric of US political life today, and how does it express itself?"

 

[And Pangloss, thanks for the enquiry on my wife. She is fine - the car has a broken fuel line from the rock she hit. In this case its not driving on the left or the right of the road that was the problem, it was not driving on any part of the road.]

 

Deidra's post went in while I was writing mine. Could you clarify what it is you wonder. I'm not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with PanGloss.

[Mad Mardigan]

mardigan' date=' you really have no idea what youre talking about. the confederate flag is a symbol of hatred and racism and "rebellion".

[/quote']

Dont forget, history is writen by those who won. Saying I have no idea what I am talking about is not right either. The civil war was about state rights, not slavery. Abe pulled a political stunt and said it was to end slavery. You have much to learn in your life, once you get out of school and you are out on your own and thinking for yourself, you will start to understand what real life is about. Yankees see the Confederate flag as a symbol of hate, slavery, and racism because some skin head neo nazis use it. The swastika was not always a symbol of hate, but when Hitler used it, it became one. It was first recorded in Tibet as a symbol to ward off evil spirits. So dont tell me I dont know what I am talking about kid.

[Pangloss]

My wife broke a fuel line once, or rather I thought she had. I walked outside when I heard her pull into the driveway and saw that her car was literally spewing gasoline onto the ground as if a faucet had been turned on. While her uncle fixed it, I got in my car and followed a trail of gasoline two miles to the tire change business and reemed the manager there for 20 minutes. (chuckle) He'd put her car up on a jack to change a tire, and you can guess the rest.

[Pangloss]

The civil war was about state rights, not slavery. Abe pulled a political stunt and said it was to end slavery.

 

Oh no, it was definitely about slavery. Slavery WAS the "states rights" issue that the southern states seceeded over. So the war was about slavery.

 

I do agree that "states rights" is an often-overlooked issue that was, in fact, resolved by the civil war. Before the civil war people referred to the United States in the plural, as in "the United States are going to...". Now they are referred to in the singular, as in "the United States IS...." We have the civil war to thank for that.

 

But you knew that. Right, Mr. "States Rights"? Sure you did.

 

It's funny, I really don't think most modern pro-confederacy people really understand what it is they're saying in favor of. Ah well.

 

 

Yankees see the Confederate flag as a symbol of hate, slavery, and racism because some skin head neo nazis use it.

 

There were no skin heads around when I was growing up in suburban Atlanta and rural Georgia. I know exactly what the dynamic was of people who had Confederate flags on their vehicles, and clearly you have no idea what motivated such people. I know quite a lot about the shotgun-racked Ford pickup crowd. It is a very familiar dynamic to me. VERY familiar.

 

It was common when I was growing up to hear the N word quite often. I was lucky -- my parents didn't approve of that sort of thing. But I had non-immediate family who used it (and some still do). They had children. Those children were influenced by that word.

 

There is no positive context for the use of the confederate flag in modern times. It was added to the Georgia flag almost a century AFTER the Civil War, as a pro-segregation statement. People slap it onto their pickup trucks out of either rebellious *biggotry* or rebellious *ignorance*. There is no other dynamic for that act. It is NEVER a statment about "states rights". Ever.