quinta-feira, outubro 28, 2004

"The Economist" por Kerry

Qual ganhará?
A revista semanal que leio com regularidade diária (não estavam à espera que a lesse de uma só vez, certo?) analisa as candidaturas de Bush e Kerry.
Quem será o melhor colocado para gerir os próximos anos?
Para escolher qual dos dois apoiar, revê o comportamento de Bush e antecipa o de Kerry. O editor em chefe da revista, Bill Emmott, deixa antever em vários dos argumentos, que a escolha não foi fácil, não é óbvia, e mais importante, não é sem reservas.

Entre o incompetente Bush e o incoerente Kerry, escolhe apoiar Kerry.

Aqui ficam parte dos argumentos usados:

"If Mr Bush is re-elected, and uses a new team and a new approach to achieve that goal, and shakes off his fealty to an extreme minority, the religious right, then The Economist will wish him well."
"Mr Bush was inspiring in the way he reacted to the new world in which he, and America, found itself. He grasped the magnitude of the challenge well."
"the mission has achieved a lot: the Taliban were removed, al-Qaeda lost its training camps and its base, and Afghanistan has just held elections that bring cautious hope for the central government's future ability to bring stability and prosperity."

"The biggest mistake (...) lay in dealing with prisoners-of-war by sending hundreds of them to the American base at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, putting them in a legal limbo, outside the Geneva conventions and outside America's own legal system."
"Invading Iraq was not a mistake (...) But changing the regime so incompetently was a huge mistake"
"Can he learn from mistakes? The current approach in Iraq, of training Iraqi security forces and preparing for elections to establish an Iraqi government with popular support, certainly represents an improvement, although America still has too few troops. And no one knows, for example, whether Mr Rumsfeld will stay in his job, or go. "
"In the end, one can do no more than guess about whether in a second term Mr Bush would prove more competent."

"What is more disconcerting, however, is the way those positions [Kerry's] have oscillated, even as the facts behind them have stayed the same.(...)presidents should primarily be chosen for their character, their qualities of leadership, for how they might be expected to deal with the crises that may confront them, abroad or at home. Oscillation, even during an election campaign, is a worrying sign."
"On trade, his position is more debatable: while an avowed free trader with a voting record in the Senate to confirm it, he has flirted with attacks on outsourcing this year and chosen a rank protectionist as his running-mate"
"Still, on social policy, Mr Kerry has a clear advantage: unlike Mr Bush he is not in hock to the Christian right. That will make him a more tolerant, less divisive figure on issues such as abortion, gay marriage and stem-cell research."
"He has failed to offer any set of overall objectives for American foreign policy, though perhaps he could hardly oppose Mr Bush's targets of democracy, human rights and liberty. But instead he has merely offered a different process: deeper thought, more consultation with allies."