"[O]ur confidence in him has been shattered."
The Economist magazine has rebuked George Bush, unfurling a lengthy and reasoned indictment of his presidency. Read it here
. I should add--they also work in an endorsement of John Kerry (much like the NYT Kerry endorsement
, it is more a "no" vote for Bush than a "yes" for Kerry).
This is THE ECONOMIST we're talking about. Pro-war, pro-business, pro-Bush (until now). Ha!!! Who will be next, the Wall St. Journal? The Weekly Standard?
UPDATE: The Economist endorsement made someone else's
day, too. The link is to "Ocean," Nina Camic's blog. She is a prof blogger here at the law school. I've never taken a class from her, but I almost don't want to--I like knowing her this way. Kindred spirit.)
UPDATE2: Thomas Friedman, who usually drives me batty, has found a way around the rule preventing NYT columnists from backing individual candidates. Read his clever endorsement of Kerry here
UPDATE3: Mixtape Marathon has endorsed Kerry
. I love Mixtape Marathon, by the way. (This is becoming my "shout out" post).
UPDATE LAST ONE, I PROMISE: Discussion in the comments about the strength of said endorsements because most are primarily a condemnation of Bush--it's not as persuasive an endorsement, etc. My response to that is that it's a fine reason. Noteworthy, but no less persuasive. As K said in the car yesterday morning, the prospect that we as a nation might endorse the recklessness of the past four years (by giving Bush a second term) is unpalatable. I'm voting for Kerry because I want a clean taste in my mouth.