A letter from the colonies...
My interest in the American election and, in particular, in Barack Obama has produced an interesting immediate response:
Mind your own business. If we had such long transatlantic noses and tried to influence your elections, you'd be screaming bloody murder. The arrogance. The hubris. The presumptuousness. I can hear your crybabying now. The anti-American propaganda and misinformation the governement funded BBC spreads throughout the world in 43 languages, especially to the ME, affects us. So, I guess by your reasoning, we have a right to say in YOUR elections. Right? Get a life and mind your own business. Your arrogance is breathtaking. The European obsession with America is pathological.I had no idea that Dr Crippen was so influential in American politics. Word from America says... (cont here)
Comment under "Knocking copy"
22 Comments:
I would argue that the BBC is fair in its reporting of America. The reason why people may think it is anti-american is due to balance and critique, two things missing from sychophatic(sp?) news reporting in the USA, where some network news output seems to resemble a government press briefing set to pictures.
Lastly, if people round the worlld are not allowed to comment upon elections in a nother democracy, then surely that democracy is not real. Just as the US and EU send observers to other countries to observe that the election is carried out fairly, I think given Florida 2000, and the hanging chads, plus the barring of many of the (mainly democratic) black working classes from registering to vote, there is even more need for external scrutiny.
As for Americans interfering in our politics....does any one remember Kevin Spacey, Bill Clinton at the Labour conferences recently......
What's funny about you falling for Barack Obama is that you recently got rid of an empty suit that talked a good game before he was elected and turned into a disaster. I clearly recall multiple episodes of hand wringing about it on this blog.
Name a specific proposal that he has (other than "immediate troop withdrawal" from Iraq which promise will be met by the already planned troop drawdown scheduled for soon after the inauguration).
Some people are upset that he is being tarred merely by association with other individuals but if you have no stated positions of your own you shouldn't be surprised if people attempt to infer your positions from the people you surround yourself with.
I was happily surprised with his choice of economic advisers (Goolsbee) but he fired him. Based on his present crew he is a demagogue, anti-free trade, naive anti-interventionist, who if not a believer in afrocentric separatism and rage against the "white man" is at least willing to tap it for political power.
Which is fine, if that's what you want.
And Dr_DYB -- if your idea of "external scrutiny" is watching CNN international and snarking about the claims made (by both sides) of vote-rigging, etc. etc. have at it, just don't expect to be taken seriously. Frankly we have enough lawyers here to take care of it.
Hi Bladedoc
"What's funny about you falling for Barack Obama is that you recently got rid of an empty suit that talked a good game before he was elected and turned into a disaster. I clearly recall multiple episodes of hand wringing about it on this blog.
Yep, I plead guilty to that, but I do have insight. I don't think Obama is an empty suit.
Name a specific proposal that he has (other than "immediate troop withdrawal" from Iraq
Ho! That's from the school of "apart from that, Mrs Lincoln, how was the play. Withdrawing from Iraq is huge. I don't think the Republicans will.
Tony Blair never made a political speech of the power and conviction of "a more perfect union"
Obama did NOT skirt the issues or spin. He addressed them specifically and courageously. The Rev Wright is reminiscent of Ian Paisley - and not to be taken seriously. Obama unequivocally condemned his militant views. Blair would never have done that.
John
Sigh...
If a nation chooses to go around the world, and tell others that they should follow the path of democracy, that nation, be it Britain or America, must be open to scrutiny itself. We in Britain have issues with disenfranchisement of youth, postal vote fraud, and election malpractice as well, and we have to accept that other countries will not accept advice from us, unless we do our utmost to remove them from our system.
As far as the media goes, i would trust CNN far more than I would trust Fox, but that could also be because I distrust Sky and News International generally as having a Pro Neo-Con agenda. Doesn't mean that I don't read/watch their output, but I do bear in mind the spin they are trying to give to a story. Conversely, most European media is anti-American, and quite liberal, and thus comes with the opposite spin on news stories.
Surely by the time you have lawyers deciding an election, the system has failed. Anyone trying to block voter registration, in any country, should be barred from any public office in that country, since they have proved, by their actions, that they are not willing to serve the people, but to control them.
I think the commenter has a valid point; should anyone in the USA presume a similar right in the UK electoral process, the media would howl down the house crying "American imperialist!"
Incidentally, I don't share your enthusiasm for the Democrats, even though I live closer to the USA than you do. I'm inclined to think that it will be McCain as president next time round. The Obama and Clinton camps are too busy squabbling between themselves.
Thanks for the Hillary picture Dr. Crippen.
You cured my priapism.
............arf
Jones@6.54: you mean no-one in the US ever has a view on elections in Western Europe, Russia, China etc?
The USA is the most powerful State in the world, so why shouldn't we all have a view on the Presidential elections - and note that 'having a view on' is entirely different from 'having a say in'.
Personally, I find the Obama/Blair comparison worryingly apt, Clinton makes my innards curdle, and McCain ...hmmmm.
Sjm,
A view, yes, but the UK coverage can seem a bit, how should I put this - obsessive at times, even partisan.
Funny. Jack Kennedy had to justify the religious faith he was born into, back when a Catholic President was controversial. More recently Mitt Romney had to justify the religious faith he was born into. I know I heard a lot of clucking from the UK over the thought of a Mormon President.
Yet the church Obama CHOSE......not born into, but CHOSE. The church where he brings his children to be influenced by a man who thinks whites deliberately created HIV to infect Africans, the usual "Truther" stuff about Sept. 11 as an inside job, the man who served on Obama's campaign as an advisor, the man whose sermon became the title of one of Obama's books......that's just laughed away. An eccentric uncle.
Yet if GWB gets paid a visit by the Pat Robertsons of the world, it's a scandal that such a man should have such "influence".
Since whoever is in charge of the US will have an influence on Britain I'd say that the British are entitled to comment on the candidates. After all, surely this is one of the bastions of the democracy that the US and Britain are so keen to impose on other nations?
"This is not a time for soundbites..."
"We are the ones we have been waiting for"
Abject nonsense clearly plays well on both sides of the pond. I think I could generate an Obama speech-creator using PHP but one is enough. In fairness to the man there are plenty of actual policy positions on his website for those who can be bothered looking. The only trouble is that they are a disaster in the making.
As far as the media goes, i would trust CNN far more than I would trust Fox, but that could also be because I distrust Sky and News International generally as having a Pro Neo-Con agenda. Doesn't mean that I don't read/watch their output, but I do bear in mind the spin they are trying to give to a story. Conversely, most European media is anti-American, and quite liberal, and thus comes with the opposite spin on news stories.
****
Dr_Dyb, the difference, of course, is that all these are media outlets which you are at liberty to buy or not buy, listen to, watch or ignore according to your personal preferences.
None of them make any pretence at being neutral and you can make your decisions based on that knowledge.
The BBC on the other hand, by law and according to its own charter is funded by us all and should therefore be free of all bias and spin.
Anyone who thinks that the BBC does not have a broadly left-wing agenda, and uses subtly different language and tone when describing people or policies of which it approves, simply hasn’t been paying attention.
Anon March 24, 10:29pm
The difference is that GWB actually believes what Pat Robertson is saying.
And Obama doesn't believe what Wright is saying? This wasn't a "grip and grin" photo op, it's the church he chose out of many churches in Chicago. He brings his children there to be taught by this pastor. The title and theme of one of Obama's books came from a Wright speech. He donates tens of thousands of dollars to the church annually.
I would not like to see a situation where no one could comment on another country's politics. After all America reserves the right to interfere in any country where it doesn't approve the leadership. Presumably that's different as they're doing it for the invaded country's own good. Personally I don't think the BBC is THAT critical of America. What happened to free speech? It's obviously not alive and well and living in the USA
How could we possibly NOT discuss the elections in the most influential country on Earth?
The US does not get accused of interference when they discuss outside elections in their domestic media (which they do, but not too much). They get those accusations when they finance coups or presidential campaigns in other countries, through their government. Which, they do.
Healthy discussion of politics domestic or international is NOT interference, and I don't believe anyone accuses Americans (people, not government) of imperialism because of it. In fact, if anything, foreigners are often dismayed at the level of insularity of political discourse in the US.
You want to follow this up-and-coming candidate. Bobby Jindal, now Governor of Louisiana, at age 36 has more legislative and executive experience than Hillary and Obama put together.
He just started as Governor of Louisiana; as such, I doubt he'll leave that job to be Vice-President under McCain, but you never know.
Here's an article about him:
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12894
I bet you'll be hearing more about him in the future. If he does well as Governor, I could see him running for President someday.
............arf
Anonymous @ 7.30p.m.
Is this the priapism you have been suffering from since you first set eyes on Margaret Thatcher?
This from the WSJ:
U.S. presidential contests often attract interest from foreign countries. The world's sole superpower has such an impact on the globe that, as a Belgian newspaper recently suggested, the rest of the world may feel it should be allowed to vote, too.
I've always wondered. Instead of trying to vote in a USA election, maybe those in these other countries could work to make their own lands more prominent in world affairs? It was not an accident, nor was it inevitable, that the USA became as prominent as it has. Just as has been pointed out, it is not necessarily destined to remain there indefinitely. China gets mentioned now, as was Japan before that. For that matter, it was supposed to be Brazil or Argentina back in the 50's.
I think given Florida 2000, and the hanging chads, plus the barring of many of the (mainly democratic) black working classes from registering to vote, there is even more need for external scrutiny.
dr_dyb I hope you read medicine more carefully. Presuming you've ever voted with a punchcard technology, would you mind explaining what's wrong with it? Somehow people managed to vote with it just fine for generations before Florida. I know I have. While you're at it, would you care to provide us with one example, just one, of a minority voter who was "disenfranchised" in Florida? No one in the US media has been able to do so. Every review of the process in Florida has shown the 2000 election to be fair and square in Florida. Just a really narrow margin of victory. I doubt you'd be able to accomplish the same in your own country.
What bothers you is you don't like the result. But as the oldest constitutional republic in continuous operation on Earth, we learn to take the good with the bad. When you mature as a people, you may learn the same.
Personally, I don't have a problem with people observing and commenting on USA politics. I just wish they would get a clue first.
It's quite rich that you think the BBC is "fair" in USA reporting, when Dr. Crippen points out bias once again. Somehow we're supposed to think the bias is limited to medical matters.
Anonymous 10:05 -- that's the old "media infallibility paradox". When you see an article in the newspaper on a topic in which you have expertise it is immediately clear that the author was completely clueless and made a series of minor and sometimes major blunders to the point that you yell at the page, write letters to the editor, or blog about it. You then subsequently turn the page to a subject that you have little knowledge of and then accept the article as good coin.
Dr_dyb: I wish to make it clear that I for one have no objection to anyone from any country having or expressing an opinion on the US election (frankly as a 1st amendment zealot I feel you should be able to express an opinion on essentially anything). My point was that what do you think "external scrutiny" of an election would consist of except more lawyers pointing more fingers?
Dr. Crippen, my prediction is that there will be no significant withdrawal from Iraq no matter who is elected. And whoever is elected will pull SOME troops out and portray this as a "withdrawal." No-one wants to preside over the massive civil war/ethnic cleansing/genocide that will occur if there is no US presence especially because stability may well be restored by an Iranian invasion. I'll put money on it if you're willing.
Same here. I don't see withdrawal regardless of who is elected President until the country is stable.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home