Views of the US election from non-US folk

Mel Martinez and Betty Castor are locked in a bitter struggle in Florida...it might have an effect on the Cuban vote.

Betty Castor's the Dem, right?

Rest of the world drawn into US race
November 3, 2004 - 6:29AM


People outside the United States could only watch, wait and fume as Americans lined up to vote in an election that has provoked an extraordinary degree of emotional involvement beyond US borders.

It wasn't just leaders and the news media riveted by the race between President George W Bush and presidential hopeful John Kerry.

Ordinary people are convinced that a world feeling the effects of the US-led occupation of Iraq, cultural and religious conflict and the war on terrorism had a huge stake in the outcome as well.

Saif-ur Rahman, a 36-year-old lawyer in Pakistan's capital Islamabad, plans to tune in when results start coming in, hoping to see change in American policy.

"Muslims have suffered under Bush whether they are in America or elsewhere," he said. "I hope Kerry will change that."

In Sao Paulo, Brazil, cabdriver Wagner Markues, 54, prefers Kerry and wonders why the race is so close.

"We don't understand America now," he said. "Are they getting different news than us about the scandals in the Iraqi prisons and the children and civilians who are getting killed?"

Lee Tim Hoe, a car salesman in Malaysia, said he was keeping his fingers crossed for Kerry to win.

"I will try to keep awake to catch the final results," he said.

Israeli newspapers let their own big local stories - Yasser Arafat's illness and a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv - take second place, putting the US elections atop their front pages.

"Kerry or Bush," read the red, white and blue headline in the mass circulation daily Yediot Ahronot.

"A Day That Will Decide the Fate of the World," read a banner headline Britain's Independent newspaper.

Much public comment focused on Bush, seen as a polarising figure in many countries.

Many people rooted for one side in the US elections with the kind of intensity sometimes lacking in their domestic elections.

Bush's go-it-alone stance on many issues - from the Kyoto Treaty to the war in Iraq - as well as his religious outlook, his Texas background and single-minded approach, made him a target for many.

Polls in many countries leave little doubt that Kerry is the preferred choice across much of the globe.

But while popular opinion was sometimes skeptical of Bush, the US president has conspicuous support from the leadership of foreign countries as diverse as Britain, Australia, Russia and Japan.

In Europe, though, Bush remains a tough sell.

"The man to beat," France's Liberation said in big type above a picture of Bush.

In Germany, where Bush is deeply unpopular, Michael Moore's anti-Bush film "Fahrenheit 9/11" was prime time fare on national television on election eve.

Many places have held mock polls. One such was held by artists, writers and professors in the Italian region of Tuscany, who organised what they billed as "the first American elections for non-Americans."

At the heart of the matter is a belief that in an era of globalisation, when American decisions affect hundreds of millions around the globe, the election is not a domestic US issue.

"Why shouldn't the Italians vote for the elections, too?" said screenwriter Michele Cogo. "The planet's destiny is decided in large part by America."

Plenty of foreign politicians have clear personal stakes in the outcome - and in these circles the choice is more balanced.

Japan's Junichiro Koizumi and Russia's Vladimir Putin, for instance, have signalled their preference for Bush.

"I don't want to interfere in another country's election, but I'm close to Bush so I'd like him to do well," said Koizumi, who threw in his lot with Bush by sending some 500 Japanese troops to Iraq on a humanitarian mission.

Putin has said a Bush defeat would mean a "new impulse" for terrorism, a clear sign of preference though he's refused to make an explicit endorsement. Bush has toned down criticism of Russia's heavy-handed campaign against separatist rebels in Chechnya in return for Putin's support in the war on terror.

The politicians who were keeping quiet - the usual practice regarding another country's elections - had a big stake as well.

For France and Germany - dubbed "Old Europe" by US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld - a Kerry White House would mean a chance of mending ties but also could bring new complications. These nations, which refused to help Bush in Iraq, may have a problem saying no again if Kerry makes good on his campaign pledge to seek more allies in the war.

If Kerry wins, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder may face pressure to back off his refusal to send troops to Iraq. Germany may want a permanent seat on the UN Security Council - and have to offer something in return, a number of observers have pointed out.

"If a newly elected president calls for a new contribution that we've refused up to now, it won't be so easy to reject as it fortunately has been with the enemy image of Bush," former defence minister Rudolf Scharping said.

© 2004 AP


http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Rest-of-the-world-drawn-into-US-races/2004/11/03/1099362171026.html

The AGE (Melbourne, Oz) readers express their preference:

Who do you hope will win the US election?

George W Bush - 13%

John Kerry - 86%


Total Votes: 7365(still voting & counting)

The Age is broadly progressive.

I wonder how Oz would REALLY vote?

Seems like it's all over in the US - which is the only vote that counts.....

Yes, indeed, Deb!

Of course this isn't a 'scientific" poll! Just an indication of Age readers' political leanings, really.

Votes in SME - SLovak daily: John Kerry 49%, George Bush 45%. 6% doesn't know.
I am so tired, between the Red Sox, dissertation, election, and kitchen remodeling I haven't slept more than 5-6 hours in weeks!

Just when you thought that Bush couldn't make America more despised worldwide - 60 million muppets come out in support of him to take it to an all time low. Well done you 60 million, its the other 230 million I feel sorry for!!!

IQ of state's residents in US election
2000 election - states that went Repub and average IQ-almost exactly as in 2004-for George W. Bush

As an American I enjoyed reading your observations. I did not agree with all of them, however, I did not completely disagree with any one of them. I thought you might want to know why we voted Bush back into office. By the way just as you do not vote according our thoughts on your candidates we give little thought also. Well except for France we hate them and their backing of Kerry helped Bush.

Ok this is why we voted for Bush:

Note: it was written from an American to whining liberal Americans on my Blog. The remarks are directed to Liberal Americans not your country.

I will not give out my Blog address ever as required by this forums rules.

Why Democrats Continue to Lose

The short answer is the country changed and the Democrats not only failed to catch up but never noticed their old loyal base drifting away.

I have read a dozen reasons, from the pundits, of why Kerry lost; they fall into three themes we are to stupid to be allowed to vote, a knee jerk reaction from the fear of Gay marriages next door, or we fail to realize and/or grasp the superior wisdom from the Liberals that they graciously bestow upon us. Which of course leads to the "I told THEM what I thought and they still VOTED FOR BUSH ... Lord they are truly STUPID. There is also the few extreme liberal views (as in heavily drugged like ramblings) such as comparing Bush to Hitler and placing the Bible next to Mien Kampf in the bizarre bookcase of delusional ideas and thoughts they attempt to weave together into some sort of congealed mass of logic. The pendulum than swung over to a dissertation about the elite using their greedy ways in some sort of racial, lower class, divisive, immoral, and Christian conspiracy seemingly plagiarizing from Karl Marx. So we will clip the spectrum down and concentrate on the Liberal's semi-coherent views.

We are to stupid to understand what is going on:
Well closer to inherently being able to ascertain the needs of our family and nation. Luckily a portion of our nation has this ability. Read the portions of the Time's article dealing with Kerry's election campaign and dysfunctional family/life. If you read the article and do not realize that America dodged a bullet than put the bottle of Jack Daniels down and read it again. Above I said luckily some have the ability to see the truth because Time Magazine was not telling and if Kerry had won the election they would of never printed the truth. It would of been something titled "Return to Camelot" or "American's the Wisest Voters in the World."

We are Homophobic drooling religious morons:
We do not really care what you do as long as you are not doing it in our living room. The reason for resistance to Gay marriage has more to do with the fear that Man/Women marriage will sink to the level of Gay unions not vice versa. It might be ok to fill out a form and mail it to the court only leaving the division of the Judy Garland CDs. However, filing a form with the court and parting ways leaving your three kids sitting on the living room floor most certainly have ramifications best left unexplored. Society as a whole is based around the principle of marriage, family, and raising your children. This foundation has matured and worked for the last 3000 years so damn well do not bother telling us we should be more progressive. I would think that "Your to Stupid to Grasp our Superior Wisdom" would take up way to much of your time to allow you to destroy civilization on your days off.

We humanoids fail to realize the superior wisdom of the blessed few:
Get a clue here folks you can sing and/or briefly personify another character for which you get paid extremely well. Your political views bear no more weight than George the mechanic that works on your car. So take your views put them to music and dance your ass off the stage.

Republican - thinks with their head than votes.

Democrat - votes with their heart with no rational thought.

Independent - Uses a mixture of brains and heart than votes for the best person that will protect American values and principles.

The mere fact that Democrats react in this fashion verifies that the wise old Liberals have yet to remove their holier than thou veils and realize the true reasons for the slow degradation of their party. They prefer their excuses explaining why WE do not get it and espouse one of the above reasons to their determent (Not Ours).

Opps I just saw the heading of this thread. I originally got here from a link on the net. I am sorry I posted where I should not of. There was no insult intended.

Apology accepted, welcome to A2K, and I hope we never meet.

NEVER MEET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I was so looking forward to an insightful intelligent debate ... wait a second ... you would not qualify. Sense you have decided to be rude for no apparent reason accept a judgmental preconceived determination of me we now get to venture in the American phrase MY TURN. As I reread your post it seems to me that you practically wasted your turn.

I am here only because while trying to get back to a thread I hit this one. Ok my turn but sense I have never met you, your comment suggest that happy occasion will never occur, I am forced to pass.

By the way if one half of 5 is 3 than the math is in base 6. If half of 5 is 3 than the total of 5 is 6, since 5 + 5 = 10 than in base 6 - 5+5=12 and one third of 12 is 4.

Ok now I understand your reply you are a die hard Liberal. My post above was something I wrote merely to justify a long winding argument that forced me into that position to win the debate. I won the debate but wrote it so I used it, ok I was lazy, short on time, and bored.

I voted for Bush for the simple reason Kerry never said who or what he was. He went to great lengths to hide who he was. Going Duck hunting 10 days before the election after voting 14 times to outlaw duck hunting and 2 times to outlaw the very shotgun he was using did not help matters. I am not a great advocate of hunting because it is not really hunting if the duck does not have a double action 12 gauge shotgun to fight back with; it is more like grocery shopping. Also I favor quite a bit more gun control than we currently have but say what you believe not be what is politically convenient at the moment. I knew what I got with Bush I was afraid to use my vote to guess what was behind door number 3.

Also we are in a world war and Bush knows it. As we successfully stop attacks in America, 8 were prevented in the last 2 weeks of the election, we become a hard target and their are easier targets to hit in Europe. At any rate your people were blown up for no other reason than being at the wrong bar at the wrong time.

As sad as it is the US and its Allies, including Australia, are too successful. If once a month 300 innocent people where blown up there would be more support; I for one am willing to accept less support.

Cobalt you are so off the point it amazes me. I'm not pro-Kerry, I'm anti-Bush. And if you're going to call me a liberal, please spell it with a small 'L'. To call the Democrats 'liberals' typifies the mirrored bubble so many Americans appear to live in.

Let's see, you accuse me of passing judgement on you without having apparent reason. But you barge into my virtual neighbourhood espousing opinions that sadden me deeply and wonder I why I don't want to meet you? Even though I welcome you to A2K?

You talk about allies but you pointedly ignore the international treaties Bush broke at the start of his first term. You talk about preventing people dying in America but apparently it's perfectly Ok for Americans to kill innocents anywhere else in the world, either directly or throught military aid.

How many people must die as vengeance for 9/11?

Why don't you ban the car, cigarettes or the gun? Think how many lives that would save every year in your country.

World War? Shame on your jingoism, but kudos on you acknowledging your laziness. Hope you're not bored any more.

You say gay marriage will weaken heterosexual marriage, I can't see how - and it seems pretty piss weak to me already.

You rant about what society is and 'what was good enough 3000 years ago is good enough for me' and then tell me you're looking for rational debate.

And your line about how republicans vote versus how democrats vote made me laugh out loud - do you really think like that? That people are all in little boxes and the world is black and white? That there are no conservative democrats and no progressive republicans.

And finally what was the point about the maths bit at the end? Surely you don't have multiple user accounts and your stalking me? Did I err in thinking you were new to A2K because your handle said it was your third post?

Speaking of which, your handle is very familiar - are you a former Abuzzer?

Since you so cavalierly grasp for answers you do not want to hear than proceed to half way answer your own questions. I will enlighten you to the realities of America. I am already quite aware they are not your realities or you and the rest of the world would move fast to help us. We are very protective of our freedoms and will die rather than live without them. On December 7th 1942 Pearl Harbor was attacked and 1200 Americans died keep in mind Hawaii was not even a state at the time. We than proceeded to fight and supply half the world with weapons losing 350,000 Americans along the way. Not one of you accusatory better than thou said a word since it was our blood keeping you safe. Yes I know you lost men also yada yada yada. It was the US that made the victory possible. However, we would of fought and lost 50 times or more of that number to ensure our freedom.

Now let me answer your question. The attack on 9\11 was on American soil and killed 3000. This time around since the enemy is not in your front yard burning your house down suddenly 3000 Americans means little to you. We care little to nothing about what anyone thinks, as you might have noticed in the last year. Have we changed even slightly since WWII no not at all you just assumed things that you wanted to believe. I would answer your question concerning how many have to die but at the moment I am not certain what the population on the planet is at the moment.

The problem you have from my point of view is that by not helping us makes it almost certain that at some point in the future hundreds of nuclear warheads will be in flight to the Middle East. What do you really think would happen if a WMD killed say 100,000 Americans. You see Bush is not a cowboy he was simply trying to keep things calm in America so a faster more deadly solution to the problem was not demanded by the American people. Unlike most countries the President does not make these calls we do. He works for us and we will fire him whenever he displeases us. No we do not need to wait for an election, built into the US Constitution and every state constitution is a means to fire them at any time. This would solve the mystery of why Arnold works at Grey Davis's desk you know the former Governor of California. He was fired by the most liberal state in the nation. I hope I answered your questions without being to cryptic.

At any rate you have a much bigger problem brewing at the moment and it seems to us that the depth of the severity of the impending event clearly has failed to penetrate the fog of whatever alternate reality you choose to reside in. This problem deals with Iran's desire to acquire nuclear weapons, the notion that you can simply negotiate with fanatical clerics and they will see the light of your wisdom is beyond funny. We intend to sit this one out. There is no way in h*ll Israel is going to allow Iran to obtain even one nuclear weapon. The world's pledges that they will insure the safety of Israel will certainly work since the last time they bought into those promises 6 million lost their lives in Gas Chambers. My bet is that most of the world will be shocked (not the US) to find out that we have zero control over issues that deal with their national survival. In case you lost count Israel has over 250 nuclear warheads. What is funny is that the very nature of your misguided views on this threat almost guaranties a resolution that will be disastrous. My money it that Israel will attempt to take out the Iranian threat with a air strike some time in March. Of course if Iran gets lucky with a chemical missile strike, Israel will start letting their nukes fly than we get to see if there is a Military Treaty between Iran and Korea as rumored. 2005 will be a very exciting year, well if your way over here with cable, beer, and a remote control. I certainly would not want to be in a country downwind of that nonsense.

One would of thought the lessons learned from appeasement that lead to WWI and WWII would not be be so easily forgotten but wrong again I guess it will work this time. LOL

I truly hope this works out but the seemingly complete ignorance concerning these matters does not have me planning any vacations your way if you know what I mean.

Oh and why in the world did you think I cared or wanted to know your opinion of Kerry or Bush. The only opinions that matter are the Americans that vote and we sure as hell do not want your opinion, In fact in the future do not even suggest you have a right to form an opinion about who we elect, EVER. The nerve you have to even remark on such things is very insulting.

How can Bush break treaties that the US Government did not approve of and the Congress did not ratify. You see in our country we have what is known as LAWS the President cannot sign treaties. The President can only accept treaties and present them to Congress to ratify. Here is something your media left out of their anti-Bush stories. Clinton never accepted the treary because Congress said they were not going to ratify it. Clinton dumped it in Bush's lap. Heck why dont you run a copy up to capitol hill. Bush cannot make or break treaties with foreign powers only Congress has that authority. Every comment you made was nothing but I lie. Your media is ran by who because apperantly your rights to true information did not make it into your constitution. You really believed the stuff you wrote it is sad really to see a citizen manipulated by his government. It must be like living in a prison. Do you get to pick your music or do they tell you what to listen to.

Well I'm glad I insulted you. If you don't think the head of state of the most powerful nation doesn't affect the lives of anyone outside the USA then maybe an insult will get you outside your mirrored bubble.

I don't know I'm bothering but....

There weren't 3000 americans killed in 9/11, there were 3000 people killed. Many of them were American but not all of them. How many Iraqis, who had nothing to do with 9/11 do you think have been killed by the invading coalition forces so far? I assure you it is far greater than the american casualities so far in this 'world war'.



What the f*** are you talking about? What has WWII got to do with it? I'm not talking about what happened 60 years ago, I'm talking about what's happened in the last five years. Surely you will agree that past good actions don't justify recent bad actions eg John Wayne Gacy used to entertain kids at parties, that didn't excuse his serial killings. I don't mean to trivialise the US's efforts in WWII, just making a point. If it makes you happy I freely admit that the US saved our butts in WWII, but if that means I can never comment on any action your government makes again then thanks a lot for saving my country from Japanese fascism and making it safe for American fascism.


WOULD HAVE! WOULD HAVE! (sorry, just a little pet peeve of mine)

Israel and nuclear weapons in Iran? What's that got to do with Iraq and 9/11. Why do you keep bringing other issues rather than actually dealing with the points already raised (I'm sure you said you wanted debate).

WWI was not caused by appeasement, and neither was WWII, Britain and France tried to avert the latter by appeasement but it had already been set in train by the unrealistic reparations claimed from Germany in the Versailles treaty at the end of WWI which put such an economic strain on them that the created a climate ripe for fascism, and need I mention how many US industrialists admired the economic miracle the Nazis pulled off, and supported the regime even when it was fighting their own country. In fact the founder of the Bush clan is one of them, though I would never blame the grandson for the sin of the grandfather.

You know Cobalt, I think a lot about the difference between what defines conservative as opposed to liberal. My rule of thumb is that a liberal thinks things could be better and a conservative wants to preserve (aka conserve) things the way they are. In Australia we call this attitude 'F*ck you Jack, I'm OK'. I reckon we've all got a bit of both in us, just the balance is skewed one way or another.

I am as glad that you aren't planning a vacation 'my way' as I am glad that I know from the many Americans on A2K from all sides of the political spectrum that you are an atypical specimen.