I stopped my subscription to The Economist last year because I felt they were being intellectually dishonest with their unquestioning backing of Bush and the attack on Iraq. I always knew they were a relatively conservative news magazine, but I thought of them as principled, and a good source of non-USA news. I felt betrayed by their attitude towards the Bush administration.
Things seem to be looking up on that front.
--
Updated: OK, once I actually read the article I decided to keep my money.
As regular readers will know, The Economist endorsed Mr Bush in the 2000 election once he had beaten our preferred candidate, John McCain. That still looks the right choice for that election. Indeed, Al Gore served a handy reminder of his unsuitability and poor judgment by endorsing Howard Dean. This newspaper also supported Mr Bush's most controversial action, the Iraq war—and despite the continuing instability in that country we do not regret that, either.
did they say why they actually were for bush? or did they just make up excuses for all of the good reasons why they shouldn't be?
(i would read the article myself, but it looks like i have to pay for it and i'm cheap)
I guess my login still lets me read it online even thought I'm not a subscriber anymore. Cool, but surprising.
They say they have not decided yet on their endorsement. I can e-mail you a PDF of it (from OS X's handy print to PDF feature) if you want.