One of the two publications I subscribe to. Extremely informative! Good reading from front page to back. *****Geez Magellan maybe you should start reading the articles instead of looking at the pictures. First of all the Economist has continually taken varying positions on the candidates and this is reflected greatly by the US Election 2004 October 9th edition. Much of their War coverage is negative so I can see why they could make the incompetent assertions in a recent article- I totally disagree. However you must have missed the recent articles that described the Bush presidency as one of the most effective transitional presidencies ever. That detailed the monumental transformations that Bush has undertaken in just four short years. With 4 massive tax cuts, education reform, a total redirection of our foreign policy in the face of global terror and initiatives to privatize massive entitlement programs on the table he has engulfed himself in an audacious agenda unmatched by very few presidents- and certainly not his predecessor. You must have missed that article. I guess with only 450000 readers you must think that no one else reads the magazine because you also literally Michael Moorize and fabricate facts to support your positions and attribute things to the Economist that distort what the articles actually say. Case in point: to prove how poor Bush's economic policies are you stated that of a poll of economists taken by the magazine reflected overwhelming support for Kerry plan. You left out apparently that this was an informal poll of 100 academics that are traditionally liberals. You also left out the tid-bit that 80% would rather work for Kerry than Bush and almost one third felt Bush's policies had no effect on the economy whatsoever. One third actually believed that the economy was in good or very good shape and Bush deserved credit for it. And only 20% thought the economy was in poor shape with 33% believing that should be blamed on Bush. I suggest you reread the Election 2004 issue and inparticularly go over the So Now You Know and In Search of Roots articles. If you're hanging your hat on the one Incompetent or Incoherent article you might as well just hang your hat on the New York Times' endorsement of Kerry and save yourself some time. Either that or do what you advise others in your comments and read it cover to cover not just the parts you want to hear.