Posted on 10/16/2004 1:02:09 PM PDT by mrsmel
The challenger has made much of his assertion that Bush has squandered world sympathy in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in 2001, writes Tony Parkinson.
President George Bush speaks to the American people in a folksy idiom. Self-evidently, this approach does not travel well.
He also leads the superpower when it is engaged in a gruelling and harrowing campaign to confront the phenomenon of jihadist terrorism, one element of which involved a costly and contentious war in Iraq. Bush calls this the "hard work of history" - but, clearly, this agenda has tested the limits of international goodwill.
According to a survey, published by The Age and prominent newspapers in nine other countries this week, Bush is seriously on the nose with global public opinion.
The polls suggest that if a majority of voters in France, Spain, Japan, South Korea, Canada, Britain, Mexico - and Australia - had their way, Senator John Kerry, not Bush, would be taking up residence in the White House. Russians and Israelis supported Bush in the poll.
Advertisement Advertisement As the presidential campaign draws towards its November 2 climax, to what extent, if at all, will these findings resonate in the domestic political contest in the United States? Kerry has made much of his assertion that Bush has squandered world sympathy in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. This has been one of his core messages to voters in the three televised presidential debates, which ended this week.
The American media invest great energy in running a scorecard on these ritualised set-piece exchanges and, according to instant polls of TV audiences, Kerry won all three debates.
But short of a meltdown by either candidate, which has not happened, it is hard to know whether and to what extent viewers' instinctive reactions will translate into voting intentions. Given that judgements will tend to be more subliminal than substantive, any effect is far more likely to come down to perceptions.
There is little doubt that Kerry's TV performance has resurrected his campaign.The 1960 TV debate is frequently cited as a benchmark, where a more compelling John F. Kennedy gained ascendancy over Richard Nixon. Has John F. Kerry engineered something similar against President George Bush?
There is little doubt that Kerry's performance in the debates has resurrected his campaign. According to an ABC News poll, 48 per cent of likely voters have a favourable opinion of Kerry, up nine points since the first debate. On voting intentions, the latest poll shows a 48-48 tie.
Poll analyst Cheryl Arnedt says: "The debates clearly changed the complexion of the contest, breathing new life into Kerry's campaign by lifting him over the hurdle of basic acceptability."
This will please Comeback Kerry cheer squads around the world. But will the anti-Bush sentiments in foreign lands provide Kerry any extra traction where it counts - among voters at home?
The demands of the war on terror and the challenge of securing and stabilising Iraq have dominated the US presidential campaign. In America, as elsewhere, opinions are polarised.
Kerry has sought to distinguish himself from Bush as a more committed multilateralist. He claims the task in Iraq would have been easier, and the costs shared more widely, if Bush had done a better job of keeping the world on side.
But push-and-pull forces are at work in the American body politic. One powerful undercurrent is a sentiment that says the superpower must be ready to act to protect itself, alone if necessary, because it can expect little sympathy or support from the outside world.
For this reason, Kerry's single greatest strategic imperative during this presidential campaign has been to overcome Bush's significant lead on the crunch issue of who Americans rate as better equipped to deal with the terrorism threat. It is a question not just about ways and means, but also about resolve and conviction.
Facing the repeated accusation by Bush that Kerry would allow other nations a veto over the US security agenda, Kerry's challenge has been to reassure voters he will do whatever it takes to defend American lives, even at the risk of hostile reactions in other countries.
Here, then, is a danger for the Democratic contender: if Americans keep being given shrill reminders that much of the world is barracking for Kerry, it could become the kiss of death.
Since the Bush campaign dare not bring this up (it might upset the New York Times, you know) and since our side seems way outgunned in the 527 game, I seriously doubt that many Americans are aware of this. Nor will they ever be.
Here, then, is a danger for the Democratic contender: if Americans keep being given shrill reminders that much of the world is barracking for Kerry, it could become the kiss of death.
---it is an indication of how far we have sunk that this question even is asked. Forty years ago any, even the slightest, intimation that a candidate like Kerry was favored by a foreign power would have resulted in a landslide defeat---
The MSM and EURAbians didn't get it when there was no backlash here to Rumsfeld's comment on Old Europe. The MSM elitists are so pompous and apart from MainStreamAmerica (MSA) that they do not get it, do not understand it and believe they are absolutely correct. As a result, they will only push this Europe is for Kerry bit further and further, until the Socialist LOOSES BIG TIME! Bush pulling away in the home stretch; the polls cannot be doctored for much longer!
That is my thought also.It's not just a knee-jerk reaction to say that the more foreign liberals support Kerry,the more reason to be suspicious of him here. It signifies that they recognise that he will be more amenable to their influence,which is rarely in America's interest by its very nature.
It does for me. I want America run by America not the U.N. Hanoi john will be their lapdog. America is being led well by President Bush. He is much more Commander in Chief than Hanoi john will ever be. God bless America and lets reelect President to keep leading Her in the Manner that he does.
'according to instant polls of TV audiences, Kerry won all three debates.'
WHO POSSIBLE BELIEVES THAT STATEMENT IS VALID?
even after the last debate, the cnn and msnbc crews were declaring a win or Bush, maybe a draw. then suddenly, MSM all just declare "Kerry won all three debates", and we are supposed to let them keep saying it. I am disgusted.
I've made a note of the way that Australia's liberal MSM had given the election there to Latham and Labor up unyil right before polling day,and of the fact that John Howard was overwhelmingly re-elected,and gained more seats in the House and is on track for a majority in the Senate there-the first time government has haled the Senate in 25 years. Also,of the fact that Kerry's sister campaigning over there against Howard was to no avail.
Is this from a foreign news site? I could have clicked on their link, but didn't want to. I agree, them furriners sure do use lots of words.
I think the author makes a lot of assumptions in this article, one of them being that Kerry gained any kind of momentum from the debates and that his campaign now has new life, and another being that he came out on top in the debates.
I, for one, don't give a flying pickle what the Eur-o-pee-ans think.
The Australian MSM is very liberal,like ours. They would never give any credence to online polls like this in any other circumstance. They know better,they just pretend not to in this case because it advances their agenda.
It's from An Australian newspaper,"The Age". They're one of the ones who editorialised against Howard,and were in a state of "shock and awe" at his dominating win,teehee.
That very same thing happened in CA, before Ahnold was elected by a landslide, and also in election 2002, Bush's mid-terms, when the incumbent party was supposed to lose seats.
The MSM has become redundant and out of touch, IMHO.
And we mustn't forget that JFKs sister, equally lanky and
long of face, was there campaigning for the other guy!
Double-teehee!!!
T, this is from an Australian site.
W can play this up for 2 weeks, easy.
Well at least we know whose side PM Howard is on-one of his sons is working on President Bush's re-election campaign in Washington.
Remember how the MSM trumpeted the fact that the Spanish government at the time was defeated in favor of the party who pulled their troops from Iraq,as some signal defeat for President Bush? But not a peep about PM Howard's historic win. There would have been a cacaphony of peeps if he'd lost.
So is Miranda Devine of the Sydney Morning Herlad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.