What Could Have Been...

Hello everyone. This blog started on election day, so I didn't have the chance to post this article up. It's from The Economist and gives its endorsement for the election. As a primer, the magazine endorsed Bush 4 years ago, supported invading Iraq, and is respected by both sides of the politcal spectrum (i.e., it is NOT partisan propoganda). This year, it thought that Kerry was better on the domestic and economic issues, but the standard by which it would give its endorsement would be foreign policy. Surprisingly, depsite enodorsing him 4 years ago and agreeing with Bush's general vision, the Economist said that its confidence in Bush has been "shattered." Specifically, it says that Bush has lost the "moral" authority to do what is needed in the future. According to them, Bush lost that moral authroity by allowing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to fester, not holding anyone accountable for the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal, lack of a plan for rebuilding Iraq, and refusal to admit even the most obvious mistakes. Specifically, they felt the election offered an opportunity for the winner to stop and consider where we were, where we are, and where we're going as a nation. Only then, can there be moral credibility to start fresh and make progress. According to the Economist, John Kerry had the discipline and character to go on that necessary, thoughful journey of self-relfection. Also, it stated that a good way for the voters to show moral leadership is to uphold the principle of accountabilty and imposing it on Bush, even if he won't impose it on himself. Anyways, the election is over and Bush has a second term. Hopefully, he read this article. It's actually not that negative about him and it's certainly not going crazy over Kerry. Basically, it says we can still prevail if we're honest with ourselves and think things through. Sound like good advice. Here's the link