Their reasons are sort of backhanded, but interesting nonetheless.
The Economist: "Obama’s shortcomings have left ample room for a pragmatic Republican, especially one who could balance the books and overhaul government. Such a candidate briefly flickered across television screens in the first presidential debate. This newspaper would vote for that Mitt Romney, just as it would for the Romney who ran Democratic Massachusetts in a bipartisan way (even pioneering the blueprint for Obamacare). The problem is that there are a lot of Romneys and they have committed themselves to a lot of dangerous things."
The Financial Times: "The more serious objection to Mr Romney is that he has gone through so many contortions to win his party’s nomination that it is hard to see how he would govern in practice. His wishlist includes an aspiration to raise Pentagon spending by a fifth while cutting everyone’s taxes and still somehow balancing the books. Such fiscal alchemy is an exercise in evasion, not a recipe for sustainable economic recovery."
These guys really don't want to vote for Obama, but they simply don't feel Romney — who has run as the financial pragmatist who can lead the country forward, economically — has any credibility in that area.
Embedded Link
Free market defenders agree: Vote Obama
Why did the Financial Times and other defenders of the free market endorse Obama? Because Romney can’t be trusted
Google+: View post on Google+
In other words:
At least we know where we stand with Obama. Romney is a wildcard and adds a lot of uncertainty, and uncertainty is bad for business.
Yup. Ironic, ain't it, given how that "uncertainty" charge kept being leveled against Obama.
(And, to be perfectly blunt, Obama's enough of a centrist that they could definitely do far worse, ideologically, from either party.)