The Rest of the World Wants Kerry

Pentagram writes "A poll by GlobeScan Inc and the University of Maryland of 34,330 people from 35 countries found almost all of them gave a strong backing to Kerry; less than one in five backed Bush. Only people from the Phillipines, Poland and Nigeria clearly backed Bush, whereas Norway gave Kerry the strongest backing with 74% to Bush's 7%. The UK, the US's most vocal ally during the Bush-led Iraq invasion, overwhelmingly preferred Kerry at 47% to 16%."

Comments

Error a president can make ?

[btk667]

Please tell me, what does a president have to do, to be remove from office ? Can you tell me what Bush haven't done yet? Is sex the only thing that can get you into trouble? ? ;)

Re:Error a president can make ?

[theghost]

Some people just can't handle humor.

But, since i'm a sucker for naive people...

After all, he already fucked the economy

Hmm, actually, he inherited an economy that was already in decline, and then, despite of what happened on 9/11 and a subsequent war, turned the economy around which has reduced the unemployment rate to a low 5.4%. Not to shabby.

The economy is about more than jobs. His tax cuts to the rich made it so that our children will have to pay something like $1,500 apiece when it comes time to pay off the deficit. We're back to borrowing from our kids to pay for our own fiscal irresponsibility.

But even if we do look at the jobs, remember that the unemployment rate only counts people who are receiving unemployment benefits, not the ones whose benefits have run out. We're still down 1.1 million jobs from where we were four years ago.

he fucked Iraq

Really? If by "fucked" you mean "improved," alright, I'll give ya that one.

Improved? Saddam is gone. That's one big step forward. Violence is rampant and much of the country is controlled by islamist radicals. One giant step backwards. The infrastructure of the country is shattered - electricity, water, food - all scarce because the violence has disrupted rebuilding efforts. Another big step backwards. The country with the second-largest oil reserves in the world has been moved back into third-world status and it's not showing any sign of getting better. Still moving backwards. But hey, that Saddam thing is pretty good. That must be why all those Iraqis are so grateful to us and happy we're there, right?

It's the right war for the wrong reasons, conducted in the wrong way. 1 out of 3 ain't good.

he fucked our international relations

I would argue that our own media fucked our international relations. They're the ones that constantly criticized, insulted, and generally belittled him. And the main reason France and Germany didn't join us in Iraq is because they were in bed with Saddam, with multi-billion dollar oil deals. Not to mention they were both involved in the corruption of the Oil For Food program.

A small minority of the media thought that he was a moron and that he was following bad policies and they half-heartedly called him on it. They're not supposed to be a squad of fucking cheerleaders, they're supposed to be the watchdogs who help prevent our government from degenerating into tyranny. This administration has taken government secrecy to new heights, aided by media outlets that are blatantly biased in their favor. Every president would love to have the media "problems this administration has had.

Right, Germany and France were just opposed to the Iraq invasion because of the money. Not because the administration was clearly lying/grossly misinformed about the WMDs. Not because it would divert resources away from tracking down and eliminating Al Qaeda and the other real threats. Not because waging war on Iraq would do nothing to make the world safer, in fact it has bred more hatred of the west in general and more terrorists.

he fucked our intelligence services

The Clinton administration is, in part, responsible for that. Specifically, it was Jamie Gorelick that wrote the memo that helped block communication between the intelligence agencies.

Bush has been busy improving inter-agency communication and collaboration. I admit they may have gone a little too far with some components of the Patriot Act.

Right, because that memo, which Bush's own people endorsed and reinforced, which was just a clarification of policies that had been in place since the Reagan years, was what kept Bush from sitting up and taking notice when a briefing that said "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US," came to him. That memo is what's responsible for his people picking out and puffing up the intelligence that supports their goals and downplaying or ignoring the intelligence that says they

This will probably be spun negatively

[ghostlibrary]

Given the current media attitude, this will no doubt be spun as "world wants a less firm, less studly leader than Bush so it can do its Francophilic walk-over our fine democratic values."

Alternative spins include "the world wants a nuanced leader who understands the issues", or "the world wants less war", or "the world wants to attack us so they need a senator in charge", or "the world likes red ties more than blue".

Hmm... it'll be interesting, but I think this is mostly a non-fact. World opinion doesn't count much within the US.

If the US takes an isolationist stance, that's not a bad thing. If we'd rather have more UN engagements (i.e. less US soldiers, easier for us to pull out and leave our allies holding the stick, et cetera), though, it might be worth paying attention.

"World wants to send soliders in to fight our battles, but only if we change leaders!" Now that's an odd spin we could try.

Re:They don't 'want Kerry'

[Watcher]

Pretty much right on. I know a lot of people who are voting for Kerry because they don't like Bush, and don't think he's done a good enough job to stay in office. I haven't talked to a lot of people who are not ardent Democrats who think Kerry is a great alternative. His biggest asset is not being Bush. I seriously doubt he has what it takes to be a good President, but he may go about things with a little more diplomacy than Bush has-or he could do what Nixon did and expand the war in the hopes of getting it "under control". I fear it may be a vain hope that he can get the spending situation back under control in Washington, which is another major failure of the current administration. Whether he would be able to achieve what some people believe he will is an entirely different matter.

You don't get a Vote

[Thunderstruck]

Just in case anyone forgot, NONE of us get to vote for the president of the United States. He's picked by Electors.

Al Qaeda DID endorse Bush

[for(;;);]

The only thing that really surprises me is that Al Qaeda has not endorsed one or the other candidate.

Read the news! Al Qaeda endorsed Bush. Here's the reporting from Fox News, of all places:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114489,00.html

The statement tells American voters that Abu Hafs al-Masri supports the re-election campaign of President Bush: "We are very keen that Bush does not lose the upcoming elections."

The statement said Abu Hafs al-Masri needs what it called Bush's "idiocy and religious fanaticism" because they would "wake up" the Islamic world.

No, they don't, at least not educated people.

[Futurepower(R)]

Quote from the article : "But why does the foreign policy establishment want Bush -- a man regarded by most educated Indians with a mixture of hostility and a derision that borders on contempt -- back in the White House?"

Outside of the U.S., Bush and Cheney are the most disliked U.S. president and vice-president in history. A Canadian government leader called Bush an "idiot".

Bush and Cheney are also the most arrested U.S. president and vice-president in history. George W. Bush was arrested once for the crime of DUI and Dick Cheney twice:

George W. Bush DUI, 1st record of arrest

George W. Bush DUI, 2nd record of arrest

George W. Bush was arrested 2 other times in his life, also.

Dick Cheney DUI, record of 1st arrest

Dick Cheney DUI, record of 2nd arrest

Many Americans have a hard time accepting that their government has become, in some ways, corrupt.

The U.S. has a difficult time getting good people to run for president:

For example, engaging in inappropriate sex is one of the characteristics of ACOAs, Adult Children of Alcoholics. Former U.S. president Bill Clinton was not an alcoholic, but his parents were violent alcoholics. The book, The Dysfunctional President: Inside the Mind of Bill Clinton, discusses the fact that Bill Clinton's misuse of sexuality is typical of the children of alcoholism-influenced families. The behavior of such children is so typical that every U.S. city has ACOA support groups.

Clinton has a strong interest in government and government policy. He at least has the knowledge to make informed decisions.

Bush, however, is a recovered alcoholic, and acts exactly the way recovered alcoholics usually act: The psychological effects of alcoholism provide a framework for understanding the Bush administration.. See points 1 through 13. Bush has never shown a strong interest in government and government policy.

--
Bush: Spending money the U.S. doesn't have to try to make his administration look good.

Denmark

[Anonymous Coward]

Where I come from, was not included, but it was on television the other day: Kerry 85%, Bush 5%.

This does not mean that Denmark doesn't like the US (we supplied troops to Iraq, not because it was right but because you asked).

Neither does it mean that we want Kerry or a weaker United States.

What we want is a smarter US. Less selfish and with a broader horizon.

A US that believes in its own principles of fairness and free trade, instead of trying to make everybody else adopt the rules they like and support their companies.

A US that does not invade random countries because they just do not like the guy. - How about North Korea or Zimbabve or Sweden (joke)..

A US that tries to end the war on terror. Not through force, but through negotiation. I sincerely does not believe that the war can be won. How can you defend yourself all over the planet?? The natural result of the current strategy is that all US allies are getting hit and are withdrawing support since nothing is done to end the war. Certainly the Iraq war was not the answer, the Afghanistan war was much more so. I do not think that Bush want's the war to end at all.

So, here we are. Danes owes a lot to the Allied forces, but Bush does not stand for the principles that we believe in here.

Strangely I saw a story about a Serbian minister which compared creationism and darwinism and suggested that they both be given equal time in the science classes. He (or was it a she) was publicly ridiculed (there was laughing involved) and had to leave office immediately. Now there's a difference for you. Bush would never be elected to any position in Europe, Australia or SE Asia. Only in the US :)

And so he's got to go.

Ps. in such a big country as the US one would suppose they could find 2 more suitable candidates.

Re:Why the rest of the world cares

[Kismet]

Where have you been the last four years? There are centrist Republicans, certainly, and Bush tries to sound moderate on the campaign trail, but whatever happened to actions speaking louder than words?

You are neglecting the qualifier in my original statement: actual government :)

But you have a point: Bush has a dangerous streak, in spite of the moderate tone.

Re:Why the rest of the world cares

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been a conservative Republican all my life, and the Bush Administration and current Congressional leadership scare the heck out of me. I voted for McCain in the 2000 primary, and I'll be voting straight line Libertarian this year.

Bush himself doesn't scare me much. Not a good leader but one we could survive if he had more typical lieutenants. Cheney is Satan incarnate.

Re:Two presidents

[RevAaron]

Sounds fine to me. But if we're changing the way things work, we better allow for someone who lives in the US to get the other president- I really, really do not want to get stuck with Bush for another 4 years (really). Not that Kerry would be all that great, but I'd take a a cheese sandwitch over Bush. It may not accomplish anything, but at least it can't do anywhere near as much damage.

Anyway, that brings up an interesting idea- govern people according to how they voted. With computers it could almost be done, though there are areas it wouldn't work. E.g., if you voted for Bush, your taxes drop 0.5%, but your kids get stuck going to a shit school- unless you send them to a private one; you don't get any national health care; and maybe they'll put your name on a missle. Vote for Kerry or Nader and have your taxes go up 3%, but actually get services for your contribution. When some poor schmuck who voted for Bush shows up at the hospital, they ask for his ID, and check the database. If he voted republican, send him the full bill; if he voted Green, send him home healthy and with a co-pay or reasonable deductable.

Things like roads would obviously not work- but most politicians would agree on the need for a public transportation infrastructure. But the national vacuum train system would only be used for those who voted for the candidate which supported it...