economist & wall st journal

The Wall Street Journal does not endorse candidates, but you can guess based on their philosophy -
http://www.opinionjournal.com/about/philosophy.html
"Looking back over this history, the surprise is not the change of views but their constancy. (See "Journal Editorials and the Common Man.") They are united by the mantra "free markets and free people," the principles, if you will, marked in the watershed year of 1776 by Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence and Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations." So over the past century and into the next, the Journal stands for free trade and sound money; against confiscatory taxation and the ukases of kings and other collectivists; and for individual autonomy against dictators, bullies and even the tempers of momentary majorities. If these principles sound unexceptionable in theory, applying them to current issues is often unfashionable and controversial."

From the Economist -
http://economist.com/help/DisplayHelp.cfm?folder=663377#About_The_Economist
"What, besides free trade and free markets, does The Economist believe in? "It is to the Radicals that The Economist still likes to think of itself as belonging. The extreme centre is the paper's historical position." That is as true today as when Crowther said it in 1955. The Economist considers itself the enemy of privilege, pomposity and predictability. It has backed conservatives such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. It has supported the Americans in Vietnam. But it has also endorsed Harold Wilson and Bill Clinton, and espoused a variety of liberal causes: opposing capital punishment from its earliest days, while favouring penal reform and decolonisation, as well as—more recently—gun control and gay marriage. "

Note that even though the Economist mentions free markets, it does not talk of the subjuct before this paragraph. They gloss over it to get to what I feel is more important to them - social issues.

Why did the Economist endorse Kerry? Here's what they say -
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=3329802
No where do they discuss economic issues except for this blurb:

"If the test is a domestic one, especially an economic crisis, Mr Kerry looks acceptable, however. His record and instincts are as a fiscal conservative, suggesting that he would rightly see future federal budget deficits as a threat."

Kerry a fiscal conservative? His solution to fixing the budget was to raise taxes
on the rich - hardly the philosophy of a fiscal conservative. This flies in the face of what the Economist purports to stand for - raising taxes is not a free markert solution to the deficit. The Economist endorsed Kerry because of Guantanomo, Abu Ghraib, abortion, gay marriage, stem-cell research, "deeper thought, more consultation with allies," etc; not for economic issues - be they domestic or global.

Here is an interesting anectdotal article about whom the free market actually endorsed -
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4026
"As word of a Kerry “Presidency” spread across the Internet at approximately 2:30 PM EST, the market began to assimilate the ramifications of this new administration. At 2:00 PM EST, the market was up approximately 70 points on the Dow. In the 90-minute span from 2:30 PM EST until the market closed, however, the market registered a 70-point decline. The implications were very clear -- a Kerry “Presidency” would lead to higher taxes and lower market valuations."