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? ? ;)

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.

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.

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...