The Financial Times? They're really picking some losers, this week:
Posted on 10/29/2004 4:01:29 AM PDT by PoliticalTracker
Europe's best selling newspaper, Germany's Bild Zeitung has made its first ever editorial endorsement of a candidate for US president: George W Bush.
The editorial came after a Tuesday endorsement for Mr Bush's challenger, Senator John Kerry, in Europe's biggest financial newspaper, the Financial Times and just before today's very reluctant endorsement of Senator Kerry by The Economist.
That a financial newspaper in a boots-on-the-ground ally of the US in Iraq would endorse a "tax-and-spend" liberal Democrat might have raised a few eyebrows on the bourses, but that the Bild would endorse Mr Bush -- despite Germany's polarisation from the US on Iraq and Mr Bush's personal unpopularity in Germany -- was a true shocker.
Deutsche Welle noted that the FT endorsement was based largely on Mr Bush's foreign policy and his "blind faith in military power as a tool for change." It did not take up economic issues in its criticisms, but did note that, while Mr Kerry was uninspirational, he had the advantage of not being Mr Bush.
The Economist opened its endorsement with a line that isn't likely to get much play in the Kerry campaign literature: "With a heavy heart, we think American readers should vote for John Kerry on November 2nd."
The thoughtful editorial notes, on the way to making its case for change: "This year's battle has been between two deeply flawed men: George Bush, who has been a radical, transforming president but who has never seemed truly up to the job, let alone his own ambitions for it; and John Kerry, who often seems to have made up his mind conclusively about something only once, and that was 30 years ago."
Back to the Bild
Bild journalist Hugo Müller-Vogg wrote the paper's signed editorial, which presents the newspaper's rationale in ten bullet points (click here to view these in German).
Freely translated (hat tip to Medienkritik, the editorial says:
1. Bush has clear priorities. He sees the inhuman Islamic fundamentalism and the murderous mullahs as the largest danger for the Western world.
2. Bush has learned the lessons of history. Military strength, not pleasant talk, is the only thing that helps against violent fanatics. And with Bush -- unlike with Kerry -- there is no doubt about this.
3. Under Bush, the US, as a superpower, will continue to bear the financial, military and casualty burden in the fight against terrorism in a "holy war" which Islamic fanatics unilaterally declared.
4. Along with fighting terror and the terrorists, a re-elected Bush will do everything he can to prevent nuclear proliferation. That is especially true with regard to the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea.
5. Bush has learned that America can defeat every country in war, but needs allies in peace. Thus, his second term will be characterized by cooperation with international partners. But he will not depend on how Syria or Libya vote at the UN.
6. Bush knows that Europe and Germany don’t have the military at their disposal to become involved in any further foreign military engagements. Therefore he won't ask them for help. Kerry will do exactly that – and will further burden already damaged German-American relations.
7. Under Bush, America will remain a reliable partner for Israel in its fight for survival. That must especially be in our German interest.
8. Republicans have always been stronger supporters of free trade than Democrats. That is also true of Bush when compared to Kerry. And that is good for Germany as an export nation.
9. Every new American administration makes mistakes. Bush has already made his. Kerry, on the other hand, has of yet held no (executive) position in the government. He would be worse prepared than most Presidents preceding him.
10. With Bush, we know what to expect. With Kerry, nobody knows what he stands for and where he wants to lead America – and the world
The Bild certainly won't earn itself any friends in Germany and may even lose some of its 12 million readers for taking this stance.
But in a footnote to the editorial, the paper compared Mr Bush to Ronald Reagan, the man most Germans credit with bringing down the Berlin wall, and said Germany owed the end of the cold war and the reunification to Mr Reagan -- and that it was possible Germany would one day be just as grateful to Mr Bush.
If it were up to them ...
That dawning of such a day is, however, unlikely in the minds of most Germans.
Deutsche Welle noted, in covering the endorsement, that Stern magazine had conducted a poll, not yet available online, which showed 59 per cent of Germans think Mr Kerry will win and only 39 per cent pick Mr Bush.
Newspaper endorsements
German newspaper endorsements of political candidates are rare even in home elections, let alone the elections of leaders in other countries.
The Daily Mail quoted Bild's political editor Sven Goesmann as saying,"With this endorsement Bild is picking up a popular tradition of US newspapers."
In the US, editorial picks is a blood sport -- but no daily newspaper has anything like the reach of the Bild.
According to Editor & Publisher's daily count of endorsements, at 29 October, Mr Bush had won endorsements from 162 newspapers with a combined daily circulation of 18,395,692. Mr Bush had picked up nods from 129 newspapers with a combined daily circulation of 11,781,383.
29-Oct-2004
Probably more sensible to call it Germany's best selling newspaper. Europe isn't one big country.
Bump
I could honestly not care less who Bild thinks I should vote for.
Ja, doofenzee goboofen.
Exactly, who cares what some Euro-weenies think about our presidential election!
Anyone who listens to the media--period--is a fool.
Goes to prove these idiots don't know anything about economics.
or Germany's crappiest paper.
BTTT
A German paper endorsed whom? Well, humpf! *I'm* voting for Kerry. So there! (just kidding :)
They were addressing their own citizens and telling THEM why THEY should be glad when Bush wins. (And I think the author was preparing them for an unexpected--to them--Bush win.)
This guy totally used reason and realism without gooey stupid emotionalism. I liked what he said.
It pissed me off beyond decent verbal control to read about other foreign papers and foreign groups who have tried to interfere in our election by posting ads in US papers and that ridiculous letter writing campaign to Ohioans. Fortunately they have stopped because it was having the "wrong" effect! ROTFLMAO
I agree with you. Completely rational, realistic and right on the money. If only more Americans were this rational and realistic in their electoral evaluations.
Of course, let us bear the burden of fighting the war which is theirs as well.
You took the words right out of my mouth. The liberals understand, they just choose to ignore.
The Financial Times? They're really picking some losers, this week:
All I can say is Holy Cr*p! The editorial makes excellent points.
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.