The Economist weighs in

Whenever I read The Economist, and find something that disagrees with my own point of view, I usually find myself reevaluating my point of view (they even made me wonder if Bush wasn't as bad as I suspected when they endorsed him in 2000). The Economist, a British news magazine, is in so many ways the polar opposite of the US main stream media (and they can by no means be categorized as the "liberal press"). They argue their opinions in a low key, extremely well informed, and very intelligent manner.

The Economist calls it like they see it, with out any emotional, reactionary bullshit. So, ever since the Republican convention, I have been waiting for their point of view on the election, McCain's choice of Palin, and the tone of his campaign. I have been waiting for them to set me straight - is my opinion opinion unbiased and reactionary, or is it grounded in some truth?

Well, here is the truth as The Economist sees it. (I'll include an excerpt from the article below, but I think you should read it all (Brian). McCain takes the harshest criticism, but they don't give Obama a free ride)

The decision to play this election, like that of 2004, as a fresh instalment of the culture wars is disappointing to those who thought Mr McCain was more principled than that. By choosing Sarah Palin as his running-mate he made a cynical tryst with a party base that he has never much liked and that has never much liked him. Mr McCain’s whole candidacy rests on his assertion that these are perilous times that require a strong and experienced commander-in-chief; but he has chosen, as the person who may be a 72-year-old heartbeat away from the presidency, someone who demonstrably knows very little about international affairs or the economy.