March 9, 2004
MORE ENDORSEMENTS HE CAN'T AFFORD:
Kerry reaches out to a world where support for Bush is ebbing away: Challenger claims president's 'allies' have told him they are cheering him on (Ewen MacAskill, and Luke Harding, March 10, 2004, The Guardian)
This week Mr Kerry claimed that foreign leaders had told him they could not publicly offer him their support but added: "You've got to beat this guy, we need a new policy."Hostility towards a second Bush term is generally assumed to be widespread throughout the world because of the Iraq war, the concept of pre-emptive strikes and bullying of small countries. On issues from the Kyoto agreement and the international criminal court to antipathy towards the UN, President Bush has alienated countries Washington would normally classify as allies. [...]
How the world lines up
How foreign leaders are believed to view the rivals:
For Kerry
Germany
France
Entire Arab world
Most of Latin AmericaNeutral/unknown
Britain
Russia
Israel
IraqFor Bush
Spain
Italy
Pakistan
Azerbaijan
Eritrea
Uzbekistan
John Kerry, the candidate of the UN, France, Germany, the Arab world... Posted by Orrin Judd at March 9, 2004 11:26 PM
WJS reprinted a column by the editor of Le Monde.
Last couple of paragraphs must read as to why it's important that Kerry be president.
Posted by: Sandy P. at March 9, 2004 11:36 PMWhat's all the fuss over foreigners endorsing Kerry ?
It's utterly irrelevant, as they can't contribute or vote.
It might make some slim difference, if Kerry would name names, and they were somebody Americans recognized and respected.
Like maybe the Pope.
Bush has Vicente Fox's endorsement, so it can't be a Kerry play for Latinos...
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at March 9, 2004 11:48 PMI don't know if I've ever posted a comment before at this movable type site... I think I may have posted one at Orrin Judd's weblog. Did BrothersJudd.com/blog get comments on it rather recently?
Anyway, if Pakistan is backing Bush, then... Well, there is a major threat to the world from that regime - the threat from there to the U.S., and others, is likely much greater than any threat that Iraq has ever posed to us.
Posted by: Aakash at March 10, 2004 12:20 AMThere's a significant threat from Pakistan, but the regime is temporarily useful in dealing with it.
Posted by: oj at March 10, 2004 12:38 AMOK, when they get to the Fleet (Bank of America) Center, Kerry's VP choice delivers his acceptance speech in German, the candidate himself accepts the nomination in French and then the audience uulates and renders their garments while pointing their campaign signs toward Mecca...
Posted by: John at March 10, 2004 12:53 AMNot that I have my finger on the pulse, but placing Israel in the neutral/unknown category seems extremely suspect. This and not mentioning Poland.
But it's the Guardian, after all, whose motto might be, "Where lies the truth"....
Posted by: Barry Meislin at March 10, 2004 1:57 AMWhy would this prove surprising? Who do you think the 1967 Red Sox would have picked to start for St Louis in the 7th game of the World Series, Bob Gibson or Jose Santiago? That, little boys and girls, is why WE not THEM pick the President.
On a related note, you can forget about all the "substantive" foreign policy differences, where W would have looked to the "world" as no more "objectionable" than say Reagan or Thatcher. The reason they have never liked him is because they see him as "more American": religious, traditional, patriotic, monolingual, simple, family oriented...Can we not see the insult here?
Posted by: MG at March 10, 2004 7:53 AMOops, I meant Dick Hughes or Bob Gibson above. As I am sure oj will point out, Jose Santiago pitched for the Sox!
Posted by: MG at March 10, 2004 8:33 AMLike most of the blogosphere I was ready to put this in the bad news for Kerry column. But then I've heard serious people arguing that we need the approval of other countries in order to get along. Perhaps that is due to my location on the liberal east coast but it is entirely possible that significant portions of the US, particularly the educated elite, think France's endorsement of Kerry shows Kerry should be president.
Posted by: AWW at March 10, 2004 8:34 AMAmericans just don't care what the rest of the world thinks. It must be galling for them. Kerry will soon find out the same.
Posted by: jim hamlen at March 10, 2004 8:38 AMBut then there's lies, damn lies etc...
http://www.gallup.com/content/default.asp?ci=10681
At this rate it won't be long before you're all gathering together to munch snails and watch 'The Red Balloon'...
Posted by: Brit at March 10, 2004 8:53 AM"Even now, only about half think favorably about France."
Posted by: oj at March 10, 2004 9:01 AMBah, you're just a bunch of light-weight frog-bashers. You think one tiff over Iraq qualifies?
We've got centuries of practice. I visited St Paul's Cathedral recently for the first time in years. From Wellington to Nelson, it's full of marvellously ornate tombs for men famous solely for walloping the French in different locations around the globe.
The formula is simple: give the Frenchies a damn good hiding, put up a statue, and then charge their great-great-grandchildren seven quid for the privelege of looking at it.
Posted by: Brit at March 10, 2004 9:40 AMIt's interesting, though, that the French hate us for saving them much more than they hate you for defeating them.
(By the way, Paris is city as story, and the story is about being beaten by the English.)
Posted by: David Cohen at March 10, 2004 10:02 AMWell, we made efforts to save them too...we're just not as rich, powerful and noisy as you any more. And therefore, not as resent-able.
The only people that hate the English now are the Scots, Welsh, Irish, Australians, Argentinians, the Asian sub-continent, Spanish hoteliers, all the Arab nations, all the former colonies and everyone else except maybe the Swiss. Who are neutral.
Posted by: Brit at March 10, 2004 10:12 AMFree the Malvinas, lime-sucking scum!
Posted by: oj at March 10, 2004 10:16 AMMalvinas?
No, it's much more serious than that. It's about football.
Posted by: Brit at March 10, 2004 10:32 AMWell. Let's have another look at that list. The idea that the Israelis are neutral would be comic except that even absurdity usually has some element of truth before it provokes laughter.
Germany is one election short of moving two groups down the list and that leaves only our active opponents France, the remainder of the Arab world and Latin America.
The opposition in Latin America derives from their desire to slow Bush down enough during his second term so that he doesn't enough time left on the clock to flip Castro, Chavez and send gunboats to Argentina to make them repay their European bondholders.
Hey. Now there's a thought for a UN wedge issue during Bush's second term in office. Why don't we sponsor a UN coalition to replace Argentina's customs bureau with an international agency that will collect tariffs which will then be used to repay international bondholders. I wonder then how many European nations would support the use of force in supplement to international law?
Posted by: Ray Clutts at March 10, 2004 2:25 PMI can't wait for this one to sink in out here in flyover country. "I don't give a @#$ %^&* what those $%^ (*&^% think. Its our country. Every time they get in trouble we gott to go over and bail them out. They should just mind their own $#@&^ business. Get it."
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at March 10, 2004 2:31 PMBullying small countries? Like Afghanistan and Iraq? What about the small people in these countries who were being bullied by the governments. I guess for the sophisticated internationalist, there are no small people, only small countries.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at March 10, 2004 3:23 PMActually, most of the "bullying of small countries" was waged by the elite Left in their attempt to demean countries like Albania, the Baltics, El Salvador, etc., who supported the war. (Maureen Dowd alone must have ripped apart half the small countries in the world if they dare support the war...) Heck, even Italy, Spain, Poland, and Japan had their "manhood in the world stage" questioned.
Posted by: MG at March 10, 2004 4:17 PMAWW:
Anyone who believes that global attitudes towards Kerry or Bush is the issue that will decide the campaign wouldn't have voted for Bush anyhow.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at March 10, 2004 6:17 PM