Posted on 11/03/2004 6:08:22 PM PST by quidnunc
In the end, it was the sheer preppie courtesy of election night that hit home. When John Kerry defied the logic of the first results and declined to concede the election early yesterday morning, the engines of George W Bush's motorcade were revving and ready to whisk the re-elected President to a public stage to claim victory.
But aides told him it would look bad, and might seem "divisive", and perhaps not the sort of thing one Yale man does to another. So Mr Bush held back, and gave his opponent more time to ponder the irrefutable arithmetic of the Ohio vote, before conceding in his own time yesterday evening.
Say what you will about George W Bush, it was exceedingly elegant of him to allow Mr Kerry a bit of private time to come to terms with a closely fought contest, even though everyone else instinctively understood the result at breakfast time.
But how disappointingly well mannered the climax to this election proved to be. Pundits on both sides of the Atlantic had decreed in advance that this was the most "divisive" poll in modern times. When conga lines of voters wrapped themselves around polling stations in South Africa in the first post-apartheid election of 1994, teary-eyed observers intoned about the healing powers of the ballot box.
When the same grassroots enthusiasm is witnessed in Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio this week, it is regarded as evidence of a "divided nation".
At your expense, the BBC sent 188 members of staff to America to cover the election, and in almost every respect, they called it wrong. Those of us who harboured a little private hope that Mr Kerry would win must take consolation where we find it. …
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Another good one....
The do have the first problem...Britain.
The British have the problem of having long supported open, hard-line socialists. By contrast, America has,at worst, only been run by muted semi-socialists.
We should wish our British friends the best.
Too bad we don't have a 'Telegraph.'
On behalf of all true Americans, I want to reach out and encourage all of our British kin...
COME TO AMERICA. COME TO AMERICA FOR THE LAST STAND OF CIVILIZATION.
Wrong! This is why Brits do not understand America. America has never been a democracy. It has always been a Republic.
Jefferson mentioned democracy once; Andy Jackson mentioned democracy several times but mostly it was Woodrow Wilson who talked up the idea of a democracy. It was from Wilson that Democrats got the idea that they could make America into something it was never intended to become. May God Bless George Bush, President of our Republic!
If only Britain had the problems that beset American democracy
By Stephen Robinson
(Filed: 04/11/2004)
In the end, it was the sheer preppie courtesy of election night that hit home. When John Kerry defied the logic of the first results and declined to concede the election early yesterday morning, the engines of George W Bush's motorcade were revving and ready to whisk the re-elected President to a public stage to claim victory.
But aides told him it would look bad, and might seem "divisive", and perhaps not the sort of thing one Yale man does to another. So Mr Bush held back, and gave his opponent more time to ponder the irrefutable arithmetic of the Ohio vote, before conceding in his own time yesterday evening.
Say what you will about George W Bush, it was exceedingly elegant of him to allow Mr Kerry a bit of private time to come to terms with a closely fought contest, even though everyone else instinctively understood the result at breakfast time.
But how disappointingly well mannered the climax to this election proved to be. Pundits on both sides of the Atlantic had decreed in advance that this was the most "divisive" poll in modern times. When conga lines of voters wrapped themselves around polling stations in South Africa in the first post-apartheid election of 1994, teary-eyed observers intoned about the healing powers of the ballot box.
When the same grassroots enthusiasm is witnessed in Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio this week, it is regarded as evidence of a "divided nation".
At your expense, the BBC sent 188 members of staff to America to cover the election, and in almost every respect, they called it wrong. Those of us who harboured a little private hope that Mr Kerry would win must take consolation where we find it. Even the most disappointed die-hard Kerry supporter in Britain must find some comfort from the realisation that, with the election over, Jim Naughtie's breathless verbal postcards from the battleground states on the Today programme have finally run their natural course.
The truth is that, from the moment John Kerry reported for duty with a jaunty military salute from the podium of the Democratic convention, his military record and patriotism were fair game for the Republican machine.
Mr Kerry made an issue of his Vietnam service, and implicitly contrasted it with Mr Bush's decision to stay safely at home. Having done this, his patriotism and conflicted attitudes towards the military became a legitimate issue.
This was regarded as evidence of a dirty campaign. Dirty? This election was so scrupulously clean that it gives Washington spin doctors a bad name. No one played the racial card, as George Herbert Walker Bush did in 1988, when his supporters flashed images on to television screens of a black rapist named Willie Horton, suburban America's worst nightmare.
Mr Kerry took a little dig at Vice-President Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter - trying to embarrass the Republicans over their opposition to gay marriage - but he quickly dropped it when he was accused of cynicism. No one took up the many lurid rumours about Mr Kerry's energetic private life when he was between his two marriages, which is right and proper.
For those pundits who look back to a golden age of issue-driven politics, it is salutary to recall how bracingly dirty elections used to be. The 1884 presidential contest between Grover Cleveland and James Blaine is chiefly remembered for the latter's supporters taunting the former - who had the 19th-century equivalent of a "zipper problem" - with the words: "Ma Ma, where's my Pa?" Blaine was popularly known to his opponents as ``the continental liar from the state of Maine''.
Re-election campaigns tend to be dull. Bill Clinton strolled home in 1996 against the hopeless Bob Dole without really troubling the exit pollsters; Ronald Reagan versus Walter Mondale in 1984 was so one-sided as to be embarrassing.
But this year brought a classic presidential election, fought over issues ranging from patriotism, abortion, stem-cell research, national security - indeed, everything that is important enough to discuss in a public forum.
If only Britain had the problems that supposedly beset the American democratic system: two parties slugging it out over important issues, including the role of the state, appropriate levels of taxation, and national defence against terrorist attack. How we would like, on this side of the Atlantic, to have the problems of America's returning officers this week in trying to deal with rocketing voter turnout.
Every American presidential election brings high-minded tut-tutting about the baleful influence of money. Some £650 million overall was spent by the two candidates - far less than on the Millennium Dome, and not a lot more than some of the most expensive Hollywood blockbusters.
The headline figure may seem a lot, until you consider what splendid global theatre is provided by a close American election. We political junkies learnt nothing from the 2000 election. For the second time running, we stayed up until past 4am to hear David Dimbleby intoning endlessly that it was "too close to call". We went to bed thinking Kerry had it in the bag, and then woke up two hours later to discover he had lost, even if the candidate himself was the only man in America not to accept that obvious truth.
And we will do the same in four years' time, fighting fatigue to wait up for that key East Coast swing state, like gambling junkies feeding a slot machine, expecting our luck to change.
Because Mr Kerry's concession was delayed somewhat, some Americans and their political soul mates over here will cling to the notion that this contest - like the 2000 election - was somehow ``stolen''. This justification will not do this time around, not least because Mr Bush had a clear lead in the popular vote. There is an uncomfortable truth about John Kerry, and about Al Gore four years ago. Whatever people say about the baleful influence of the religious Right, or the Bush campaign's playing of the terrorism card, neither of these candidates, ultimately, was good enough to beat George W Bush.
A brilliant Democratic candidate would have won four years ago, and again on Tuesday. Mr Bush has proved himself the better campaigner not once, but twice, and that is a tough bullet for his vanquished opponents to chew on. It is also what tends to happen in a properly functioning democracy.
I can never quite figure out the British Press. The have their head so tightly tucked up their rear most of the time and then every once in a while you see something like this.
A lot seems to be made of the cost of this election:
"very American presidential election brings high-minded
tut-tutting about the baleful influence of money.
Some £650 million overall was spent by the two
candidates - far less than on the Millennium Dome,
and not a lot more than some of the most expensive
Hollywood blockbusters."
But what they forget is this money is willingly spent, transfered from one pocket to another, reving up the econemy
and all of it stays right here at home.
At least he is NOT a SORE loser. I always like people who PAY tribute to AMERICA!
Good article - thanks for posting it.
Do you think they will ever get it right? It wasn't a race card love, it was a, "That nitwit let a dangerous man out of jail to kill again" card.
We tend to frown on that here. Unlike in Britain where the criminals have more rights then the honest folks
This would be a little less obscure with the rest of the verse - "Ma, ma, where's my Pa?" "Gone to the White House - ha ha ha!"
No. IIRC, it was Al Gore who first brought Willie Horton's name to prominence in the Democrat primaries.
I really enjoyed this one -- thanks.
Well, I suspect it's because the guy who wrote this might be the only one sober today. When the rest of the staff get over their hangovers, it'll be business as usual again.
Quote"
Well, I suspect it's because the guy who wrote this might be the only one sober today. When the rest of the staff get over their hangovers, it'll be business as usual again.
---
What evidence is there they will get over their hang-overs?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/22/brit_workers_drunk/
Actually, their first problem is socialism. Imagine living in a country where the economic numbers, as a norm, were always on par with those that we had during Jimmy Carter's reign of terror? How awful would that be?
Great place to visit; absolutely no way I would want to live there.
The 1884 presidential contest between Grover Cleveland and James Blaine is chiefly remembered for the latter's supporters taunting the former - who had the 19th-century equivalent of a "zipper problem" - with the words: "Ma Ma, where's my Pa?"
I wonder if he knows Cleveland voters' response after the election: "Gone to the White House--Ha ha ha!!
Good Lord, I didn't realize there were still sane people in Great Britain, good article. I read one earlier from the Independent that could easily have been written by a NYT reporter with a bad hangover and a huge grudge.
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.