Funny, very appropriate cover on Reasons to dump Bush.

[LittleApple81]

[BlueEyedSon]

1. kick

[rockymountaindem]

2. That's photoshop, right?

[Bozita]

3. That's the actual cover

[Renew Deal]

4. Nope

http://www.economist.com/

[rockymountaindem]

6. Well I'm shocked,

shocked I tell ya. Wow, that's really cool. They also seem to have one inside about Kerry, but they only put Bush* on the cover. Republicans crying about media bias in 3...2...1...

Cry me a frikkin' river

:nopity:

[TheDebbieDee]

7. What about awed? Are you awed, too? ; ^ )

[napi21]

5. It's REAL!

Brian Lamb showed it on C-Span this morning on the Washington Journal. I don't know anything about this magazine, but the cover sure beats those I've seen on the other major business mags like Newsweek and Time.

I LOVE IT!

[Renew Deal]

8. Newsweek and Time are not business mags.

They are entertainment. The economist is a business mag.

[BurtWorm]

9. The Economist bought the WMD lies hook line and sinker.

They pushed the war with cover stories on "The Case for War" TWICE (!) in half a year. They must be feeling had. I stopped subscribing to them because of their affection for neo-con foreign policy and persistent rooting for the Bushists. Maybe they're waking up.

It should be noted that after the NORC report came out in November 2001, the Economist printed a "correction" to the effect that while they had said Bush was elected in December 2000, new information suggested that the election remains "too close to call."

[LittleApple81]

10. kick. n/t

[LittleApple81]

11. Kicking for the evening crowd. n/t