« A "must read" | Main | Just a nuisance »

Screwed up articles

I saw several items on the BBC last week about the up coming Australian election and you could hear the reporters loving the idea that Howard was going to lose - 1500 word essays on Iraq and domestic politics were being drafted - and what happens, the polls are badly wrong. It reminds me of Kinnock's loss when no one liked to admit they were going to be uncool and vote Tory to the pollsters, but safe in the booth that is what they did. So I was glad to see that Instapundit.com has noted the same phenomenon:

AFTER WHAT THE AGE CALLS JOHN HOWARD'S "THUMPING VICTORY" in an Australian election that was run in no small part as a referendum on the war, it's interesting to see how little play it's getting in U.S. media.
If Howard had lost, however, I suspect it would be getting a lot of attention, and advanced as evidence that the war was going badly, Bush can't keep allies, etc., etc.

Comments

You are exactly right. The heavily Democratic leaning American pundits aren't any more anxious than are their European counterparts to report any event that could cast Bush in an even vaugely positive light. The collective irritable pout on display for months from Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Tim Russert, Dan Rather, etc. due to "these stupid voters who insist on sticking with Bush in the polls" in the run up to the debates, gave way to unbridled jubilation when Bush did so badly in the first debate. There was grudging acceptance that Cheney may have had some good moments against Edwards (Cheney wiped the floor with him), and the second debate between Kerry and Bush was decided as a "tie", even though the moderator in that debate chose the questions for the candidates from a selection given to him, and was much harder on Bush than Kerry.

I think Bush will be re-elected. It's not that Americans are particularly fond of Bush, but they don't like Kerry, either. Whether we should have gone into Iraq or not, the fact of the matter is that we are there, and most Americans don't agree with Kerry's apparent opinion that we will somehow be "legitimized" by cajoling unwilling Europeans on board. On what basis has Germany, France and Belgium acquired this moral lustre? Most Americans don't see it. They also agree with Bush that Kerry can't have it both ways: saying that it is the "wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time" and then assuming that, once he is elected, relieved "allies" will leap on board. If they haven't already, why would they, after listening to him?

Americans generally are business oriented and market savvy enought to realize that stopping "outsourcing" is impossible, and the taxes that Kerry proposes to that end will do more harm than good.

There is also the "regular guy" factor, which isn't really an issue in European politics. The closer the American public get to Bush personally, the more popular he is, whereas the opposite happens with Kerry.

So Bush probably will win, after which the petulant tantrums will resume. I assume that European commentators will question the sanity of American voters, as well, or will somehow manage to completely ignore the results.

Nancy: You go, girl! I think you hit the nail right on the head.

I am fond of Bush. I think he is "stand-up guy", and has a whopping huge pair of conjones. I don't always agree with him, but I do most of the time. I don't give a damn about electing a debater (Master debater? ;)) I didn't bother to watch the silly debates. I do, however, want a leader with the sand to both lead and do what he thinks is right. I don't think Kerry is capable of being that kind of leader.

Post a comment