I KNEW those gorgeous critters were being exploited! That's delightful, Gus! The wolves hit back!
"Vote for BUSH! No way!"
Bush stunt backfires on Britain's left
October 28, 2004
Foreign do-gooders have no right to meddle in the US presidential election, writes Miranda Devine.
.....
This US election has grabbed the attention of non-Americans like no other. And "the world" wants Bush kicked out, if you believe an international poll conducted by newspapers (including this) in 10 countries, two weeks ago, showing 52 per cent support for Kerry compared with just 28 per cent for Bush. (Australians had a marginally better opinion of Kerry, at 54 to 28.)
The British left-wing newspaper The Guardian, which participated in the poll, decided to go a step further and attempt to persuade US voters in the crucial swing state of Ohio to vote out Bush.
Operation Clark County aimed to match up individual readers with "undeclared" voters in Clark County, Ohio, the bellwether equivalent of Eden-Monaro in NSW, since no Republican has won the White House without winning Ohio.
The plan was that each reader would write a letter to a Clark County voter urging a vote against Bush.
Although The Guardian claimed the project was bipartisan, its front page headline on day one was: "What you can do to beat Bush - with a little help from the folks in Ohio". Sample letters by celebrities, such as novelist John le Carre, drove home the point: "Probably no American president in all history has been so universally hated abroad as George W. Bush ... Give us back the America we loved, and your friends will be waiting for you." Movie director Ken Loach wrote: "Today, your country is reviled across continents as never before." Great way to win friends.
The experiment was a rip-roaring success, if making people notice your newspaper was the goal. But if getting Kerry into the White House was the goal, it was an abject failure. After sending out 14,000 Clark County addresses to readers, The Guardian abandoned its project, realising it may have backfired, judging by 5000 responses such as these. "Real Americans aren't interested in your pansy-ass, tea-sipping opinions. If you want to save the world, begin with your own worthless corner of it," wrote a Texan.
....
From Knoxville, Iowa: "Keep your noses out of our business. As I recall we kicked your asses out of our country back in 1776. We do not require input from losers and idiots on who we vote for in our own country."
...But the real damage to The Guardian's aims came when letters started to arrive in Clark County, so angering locals that the area's Republican campaign office reported a surge in volunteers. "Butt Out Brits, voters say" was the headline in the Springfield News-Sun. The Clark County Republican Party chairman, Dan Harkins, said: "I just want to thank The Guardian for ... helping to keep the Republican base committed. What a gift."
A local, Beverly Coale, received a letter from Guardian reader Neil Evans of Kent telling her if Bush won she would have to "put on a Canadian accent when travelling abroad". She threw it away, fearing it was from a terrorist, the News-Sun reported.
The Guardian's project was to have culminated in a trip for four readers to Springfield, Ohio, to meet the voters. But realising the reception would be hostile the newspaper had to switch the destination to the "more tranquil" Washington.
There could be no better demonstration of how unfailingly counterproductive are the global left's furious, hyperbole-charged campaigns to bring down Bush.
A similar campaign in Australia against Howard simply delivered him a resounding victory on October 9. Swinging voters in both countries are usually moderates, unimpressed by intemperate ad hominem attacks by people who presume to be better informed. They can see Bush, Howard and their supporters are not the monsters their enemies try to paint them. They can see Bush is not a moron, any more than Howard is a fascist. In fact, Bush and Howard's enemies may be their best campaign weapons.
Meantime, The Guardian has gone back to its usual balanced, measured political analysis of the US election, with columnist Charlie Brooker calling last weekend for Bush to be assassinated. "On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all.
"The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed ... John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley jnr - where are you now that we need you?" Nice.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/27/1098667836946.html?from=storylhs
Lol - well, the Bush right wing attempt to interfere with our election sadly seemed to cause no such reaction - but, I do think it exceedingly stupid for ANYONE to interfere in another country's election - whether it be the centre-left as here, with the Guardian, or such monumental interferences as the US in Chile, the Congo, Iran and Nicaragua, for instance.
Actually, I had quite an argument with my partner about a similar email campaign that some idiot is running - whether from Oz, or somewhere else - I don't know who is behind it - but apparently it is emails urging people not to vote Bush back in.
Talk about dumb tactics.
Perhaps flattery would work, Deb? :wink:
Hmmmmmm....beats invasion, supporting contra terrorists, or assassination, that's for sure!
An opinion poll in Mexico's leading newspaper today.
Which electoral system is more trustworthy:
Mexico's : 65%
United States': 35%
In one decade, the tables have been completely turned.
fbaezer wrote:An opinion poll in Mexico's leading newspaper today.
Which electoral system is more trustworthy:
Mexico's : 65%
United States': 35%
In one decade, the tables have been completely turned.
But why do all those illegal immigrants keep flooding across the US/Mexico border if not for our superior electoral system?
It's the economy, Ticomaya!
Certainly not the politics! :wink:
Quote from hingehead on the Oz Election thread this morning:
I watched the Glasshouse tonight. Thought I'd share a quote from guest Chris Taylor (from the Chaser):
Australians are very interested in the US Elections - unlike the Australian elections they will have a very real bearing on who runs Australia for the next four years.
How true! How very sad!
An easy-peasy, el quicko guide to the US election published in my morning paper:
So what's it all about?
October 30, 2004
1. When is the presidential election?
Tuesday, November 2 (Wednesday Melbourne time). By law, it has to be held every four years, on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
2. Why November?
Because the US was once an agrarian society, and November was convenient for farmers, who would have have finished spring planting and the autumn harvest. Also, the weather was not yet bad enough to prevent travel by buggy on unmade roads.
3. Why Tuesday?
Because rural workers had to travel long distances to vote. If they had to vote on a Monday they would have to start travelling on Sunday, a day of worship.
4. Who are the candidates?
The Democrats have Massachusetts senator John Kerry. He is best known as a Vietnam veteran with three Purple Hearts who became an anti-war protester. He is also known for marrying a rich woman - Teresa Heinz Kerry is worth $US1 billion ($A1.3 billion). If Kerry is elected, he will be the richest man to live in the White House.
5. And the Republicans?
They're sticking with incumbent George Bush, elected in 2000. A former governor of Texas, he likes to present himself as a swashbucklin', gun-totin', ranch-ownin' cowboy, but actually, he is a Connecticut-born, Yale and Harvard-educated multi-millionaire. He is the son of a former president, and did not serve in Vietnam.
6. Any others?
The independent candidate is Ralph Nader, who has no chance of winning. A multi-millionaire, he is running because he loathes the Republicans and doesn't much like the Democrats either.
7. What's with all the rich guys?
In US history, there have been 43 US presidents. All were white Christian males. No blacks, no Jews and no women have made it to the White House. Candidates for office must be US-born, over the age of 35, and have lived in the US for 14 years.
8. Michael Moore says Bush "stole" the 2000 election. Did he?
Bush won the 2000 election when he won the state of Florida by 537 votes. His opponent, Al Gore, contested the result, citing irregularities. He said some votes had been disqualified because the old punch-card machines failed in many instances. The matter was referred to both the Florida courts and the US Supreme Court, which ultimately upheld the result. A few months later, a group of newspapers, including The New York Times, conducted their own recount of the Florida vote and concluded that Bush won.
9. But didn't he lose the popular vote?
He did. Bush received 500,000 fewer votes than Al Gore in 2000. He won because of the "electoral college", a state-by-state system. Similarily, in Australia, a party can get more votes than its opponents, but lose the election if it does not win the marginal seats.
10. Is the electoral college system fair?
This is the subject of much debate. Some say the system is archaic. Others say it is the best way to ensure that a president has substantial support across all 50 states rather than, say, galloping to victory on the basis of getting all the votes in a liberal state such as California, and none at all in 10 less-populated, conservative Southern states.
11. Was Bush the first president to win when the other candidate got more votes?
No. Four times in the past 180 years, the electoral college has awarded the election to the candidate who received fewer votes - John Quincy Adams in 1824, Rutherford Hayes in 1876, Benjamin Harrison in 1888 and Bush in 2000.
12. Who is ahead in the polls?
Bush. Or perhaps Kerry. Most recent polls have concluded that the result is too close to call because Bush's slim lead is within the margin of error. A CNN-Gallup poll suggests fewer than 1 per cent of people are thinking of voting for Ralph Nader. All agree that the election will be decided in the eight-15 "swing" states, which include Florida.
13. What are the issues?
This is the first presidential election since the September 11 terrorist attacks, so terror is at the forefront of both campaigns. Bush says he can keep the US safe from terror; Kerry says he can, too. The war in Iraq is also an issue. Bush says the war was necessary to get rid of Saddam Hussein. But he went in to rid the country of weapons of mass destruction, of which there were none, not to get rid of Saddam.
Kerry says Iraq was the "wrong war at the wrong time". However, he once supported it and voted for it, and he, too, believed that Saddam had weapons. Now, however, he says the US should have given the UN's weapons inspectors more time to discover there weren't any. Both candidates support keeping US troops in Iraq until the country is "stable". Kerry says he would be able to get more international support for the reconstruction.
14. What about domestic issues?
Some voters are concerned about the economy and the loss of manufacturing jobs; others like Bush's tax cuts. The two candidates are split on social issues, too: Bush is anti-abortion and Kerry is pro-choice. Bush is opposed to stem-cell research because it leads to the destruction of embryos; Kerry supports such research, saying it could lead to cures for debilitating diseases, such as Alzheimer's. He also wants to spend more on health care.
15. Will religion play a role?
Yes. Bush is a born-again Christian; Kerry is Catholic. But the Catholic Church is urging its followers not to support Kerry, because he supports abortion.
16. Is voting compulsory? How many people are expected to vote?
Voting is voluntary, and so many people don't bother.
The US Census Bureau states that only 60 per cent of eligible voters (or 111 million people) voted in 2000, when Bush was elected. That was slightly higher than the 58 per cent of eligible voters who voted when Clinton was elected in 1996.
17. Why don't people vote?
Last year, the US Census Bureau surveyed non-voters and most said they had something else to do, such as go to work. About 12 per cent said they just weren't interested. This year's polls show that interest in the election is high and some states - such as Florida - have had a substantial increase in registered voters. However, both parties pay people to register new voters, and there is no guarantee that the new people on the rolls will show up.
18. Is there likely to be a legal challenge, as in 2000?
There have already been several legal challenges: Republicans say the Democrats are registering people who are dead, or cartoon characters, and they are challenging many of the thousands of new registrations. The Democrats say the Republicans are trying to keep eligible voters off the rolls. The punch-card machines that caused headaches in Florida are still in use in some states. Others have adopted new, electronic voting machines that some say are vulnerable to hackers. If the election is close, there may well be a challenge.
19. When will the president be inaugurated?
At noon on January 20, next year.
20. How much money has been spent on this campaign?
The candidates are spending $US9 million ($A12 million) a day, mostly on advertising. A total won't be known for many weeks, but it's certain to be in the hundreds of millions.
`
georgeob1 wrote:Whose fault is that?
John Howard has certainly escalated this & a tendency to follow powerful countries. We used to slavishly follow "The British Empire".
,... morning, panzade!
What's a "good one"? Not the fact that Oz slavishly follows the US, I hope! :wink:
