Unanticipated change of heart

[muckefuck]

I'm stunned to see that, after article after article defending Bush's foreign policy decisions, Economist has come out with an endorsement of Kerry. I guess they've been more convinced by Senator Kerry's shift in rhetoric in recent weeks than most neo-conservatives.

Anyone keeping a tally of media endorsements? Are there other surprises out there?

Comments

Bild

[vokzal.livejournal.com]

The German Bild endorsed Bush.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

Is that a surprise? Yes, it's the most-read major circulation paper in Germany, but also by far the most conservative. A lot of Americans have been able to overlook their opposition to the Iraq War because they approve of Bush's social conservatism.

[cpratt.livejournal.com]

That's not even remotely a surprise. Remember Die verlorene Ehre der Katharina Blum?

[vokzal.livejournal.com]

Guess my German wasn't good enough to figure out its slant when I was there. I was just sort of flabbergasted at the half naked chick on the cover.

[cpratt.livejournal.com]

Does Francis Fukuyama's statement that he won't be voting for Bush count?

Are you still voting for him?

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

At the risk of sounding like a flip-flopper...I really don't know if I'll be able to bring myself to when the time comes.

[mollpeartree.livejournal.com]

Look at this way: Since Kerry will win Illinois hands-down, you will only be contributing to Bush's popular vote, which either amounts to a vote against endless lawsuits and wrangling over a repeat of 2000 if Bush wins the EV and loses the PV again, or a vote for a repeat of 2000 giving Kerry the EV but not the PV, which would be freakin' hilarious. It's a win-win kind of thing, if you ask me.

[prilicla.livejournal.com]

Thank you. I feel much better now.

[jovianconsensus.livejournal.com]

I'm not at all surprised. For every word The Economist has printed in defense of Bush's goals, they've printed another to criticize his methods. I can't guarantee they're wrong. It is, as they say, a choice between incompetence and incoherence. Both frighten me.

[danbearnyc.livejournal.com]

The Cape Cod Times!

Last I saw

[arkanjil.livejournal.com]

some 35 papers that supported Shrub the first time around have had a change of heart, while five or so have flop flipped the other way. It really does seem to boil down to faith vs. 'reality based' living; Shrub's habit of spreading half truths and evasions on the stump have relaly made me wonder if it matters who wins, given the frighteningly deep division over how we look at the world now. The neo-cons realyl don't seem to see any price as to high to pay to have their way, for the good of the nation and the world. But a good many people disgree with thier methods and thier results...

Ah me, s'time to renew my passport, is all I can say for sure

[mollpeartree.livejournal.com]

It was interesting to see Christopher Hitchens endorse both Bush (in The Nation) and Kerry (in Slate). I wonder if he'll publish a tie-breaker?

[lhn.livejournal.com]

If Hitchens' comments on Kerry constitute an endorsement, I suspect Kerry would rather live without it. But Hitch does seem to be hopping on the "if faced with running the situation, Kerry and the Democrats will have to come around to our point of view" bandwagon that has attracted so many pro-war bloggers like Drezner, Sullivan, etc.

To me, this almost seems like magical thinking. Sufficient dissatisfaction with the Bush administration to push a few pro-war voters across the line doesn't actually confer any particular obligations onto Kerry. (Who might conceivably choose to follow his history and the larger part of his party's base as far as foreign affairs go.) The idea that either candidate would pursue basically the same policies (so that it's only relative competence that matters) doesn't seem to stand up to a millisecond's scrutiny. (Particularly given that it's precisely policy differences-- if in the domestic rather than international sphere-- that drive, e.g., Sullivan's break with the Bush administration). Yet that seems to be implied in a lot of these endorsements-- even as it's belied by the intensive tea-leaf-reading they have to do to convince themselves.

It seems obvious to me that if the Bush administration isn't capable of carrying out its strategy (or of convincing the voters that it can and should do so) then that strategy isn't going to be carried out-- to the rejoicing of some, the despair of others, and apparently to the bewildered disappointment of a few. That that leaves unsatisfactory choices isn't exactly a surprise, but if they really think that Bush can't do it, then they really have to say that the policies they (and I) have been pushing for for the last several years have failed. (I don't think we've reached that point myself, though a Kerry victory will go a long way towards convincing me otherwise. It's undeniable that on the eve of the election, Bush has done a lousy job of communicating and convincing, whether or not he can scrape up enough to win on Tuesday.) Endorsing Kerry while sticking with the same basic outlook on how to deal with Iraq, Islamofascism, terrorism, proliferation, etc. doesn't make any sense to me.

[mollpeartree.livejournal.com]

You and me both, dude. I've been thinking about writing something about this in my own lj (you know, since I haven't had a really good flame war in my journal lately).

Viva la Economista!

[febrile.livejournal.com]

I noticed that yesterday. "It is with a heavy heart...." Oh, Economist, how I miss thee...!

As for a tally, I can't remember the website -- The Note frequently references it, and I believe it has Editor" in the title -- that has a comprehensive list of who's said what, including the papers that have decided not to endorse a candidate.