A Letter to America

[Democratic Hawk]

Dear America,

I have long cherished the special relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States of America. I have long been engaged in the political process of my own counrty and take a keen interest in the politics of the USA.

Being a Labour Party activist I have a natural affinity with the Democratic Party and, while a supporter of the Bush-Blair policy in Iraq, I'm a little dismayed by the closeness of our centre-left Prime Minester and your right wing President. Therefore, because I identify with teh Democratic Party much more than the Republican Party, I support their presidential and vice-presdential candidates, Senator John Kerry and Senator John Edwards.

I would describe myself as ' a Christian left-of-centre, democratic socio-capitalist'

However, as much as I have supported President Bush's vigorous 'War on Terror', I'm a little dismayed at his belief that it's a war that cannot be won. I have no doubt that Senator Kerry will be equally tough in his defence of America. He is the guy who served his country in Vietnam and while you may or may not agree with his anti-war stance on his return, I respect him for doing so because it was for the right reasons. He is no less a patriot for doing so. End of story.

I agree with former Senator John Glenn of Ohio, who in response to the S.B.V.F.T. cabal has spoken out rightly saying that this election is for the future of America - not the past.

The 'War on Terror' and Iraq aside, George Bush has been a rather ineffective president. Rising poverty, job losses, spiralling healthcare costs, diminished levels of income for many American values and budget deficits are no recommendation for a second-term in the White House.

I quite liked Bush personally but not any more. I have scant respect for a man who seems to be incapable of running a fair-and-above board political campaign. It has come to my attention that he is a man who on no less than three occasions has played dirty. First it was with Ann Richards, then it was John McCain (what a magnanimous man he is) and now it's with John Kerry.

I was prepared to give Bush the benefit of my doubt but after Richards and McCain - no chance!

I see that Republican Party moderates are taking centre stage at the RNC to appeal to modrerate voters. Well, social moderates such as Senator McCain, ex-Mayor Rudy Giulliani are not representative of the Republican meanstream. Though, how Giuliani can liken the Bush to the great Winston Churchill beggers belief.

The Republican platform merely appeals to its core conservative base. Proposed bans on same-sex unions and abortion will be positively draconian and smacks of intolerance. Being an evangelical Christian, though I'm no fundamentalist (I cherish the social gospel), I'm against same-sex marriage as sanctified by God but see no harm in civil unions and I'm against abortion on demand, yet recognise that there are circumstances in which it is acceptable. These issues along with the death penalty are for the states to decide.

The Republican Party ceased being the party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower a long-time ago. The 'compasionate' side  of the Republican Party effectively died when Nelson Rockefeller lost the 1964 Republican nomination to Barry Goldwater in much the same way as it did in our Conservative Party after Harold Macmillan.

America has a choice to either support the liberal, centrist progressive Democratic Party or the conservative, right wing reactionary Republican Party.

Liberals, moderates, conservatives of the 'heart' and evangelical Christians, who embrace and cherish the social gospel, as I do, should vote for John Kerry on 2nd November 2004.

Your friend,

Dave

[KEmperor]

Gotta love how the European press manages to brainwash people into thinking the Republican Party is reactionary.  America is not falling apart at the seams, despite what you might hear.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I stamped your letter "Return to Sender!"

Most of us in America don't care what you think.

[MasterJedi]

And most Democrats wouldn't be elected in Europe because they're too far to the right there!

[Platypus]

lol, and europeans are being brainwashed?

[ilikeverin]

lol, and europeans are being brainwashed?

And everyone who went to a public school

[Niles Caulder]

A heartfelt and respectful letter, Dave--all too rare of a tone heard these days on these subjects.

As you've no doubt observed, Prime Minister Blair has stood closely by an American president before in situations he didn't really have to--namely the seige of President Clinton's Administration during the height of the Lewinski scandal.  It is my belief that his motive for doing so was the same back then as it is now...and that it rises above Partisan politicans which rely on ideological extremes to distract the people from what government really does, and that is (often times) govern.

I agree Kerry, if elected, will be an adequately capable and effective leader for our needs.  But I think the scales are lot more even than you perceive.

Supporting the Iraq war as you do, you no doubt acknowledge the virtue of PM Blair setting aside Party differences to achieve a common goal.  And if Senator Kerry wins the election, there is no doubt in my mind how closely Blair will stand with him as well.

President Bush made a very poor blunder in articulating the War on Terror "cannot be won."  Failing to make himself clear permitted people to interpret that implied he believed it could only be "lost."  And this not only gives ammunition for his domestic opposition, but to the enemy as well.  'War is a moral contest,' and his most important job is to win the moral contest in the eyes of the world.  This situation was a small set-back in those terms, but it was not merely a superficial one.
However, let's not be blind to the truth: we don't know what the President 'believes.'  He has stated that what he meant to indicate is that the War on Terror will never have an official, recognizable point in time that victory is determinable.  The enemy will never sue for peace, nor surrender.  They will fade away if we choke out the forces that create the breeding grounds for terrorists, however--so winning this unconventional war requires us to wage it unconventionally (diplomatically) ourselves.
Is this what the President believes?  I don't know that's the case, either...but being familiar with his rhetorical lapses, I find his explanation credible.  I'm displeased with the error, but they are inevitable no matter who is president--and Kerry has demonstrated he can make some fine ones himself.

While I concede there's a remarkably good argument against relying on defecit spending as we have done, the remainder of your economic citations as evidence of the President's 'lack of effectiveness' I don't think compose an argument easily defended.  America has not figured out how to remove economic cycles from the world yet...and expecting to do so under the circumstances we've been under is a little unrealistic.  Recessions bring with them job losses and rises in poverty level, and when things turn around, so do these trends--(and they have already begun to do so.)
In my opinion, the best argument for saying the poor state of the economy is Bush's fault is his decision to invade Iraq--and again, you've stated your support for the policy.

As for your references of "dirty politics," I'm unsure of to what you're specifically referring or your perspectives on it...but I rather suspect they're not terribly uncommon, assuming we're talking about discernable facts and not oral myth to begin with.  Oftentimes the tactics that get identified as "dirty" are so identified merely because they succeeded.

Which leads me to my conclusion:  the demonization of this president is an event no amount of reality could create by itself.  Being perceived as a 'Right-Winger,' 'stupid,' 'economically elitist,' these are all images he himself has woven, and if anything he's a victim of his own success.  (But "Only Nixon can go to China.")  Letting heroic/demonic imagery substitute for cold-hard reading of his words (which are frequently carefully chosen, believe it or not) and what's abuzz on page 17 in the newspapers is a sure-fire way to underestimate a guy.

And if his real 'agendas' truly do make him your opponant...it's unadvisable to underestimate that opponant.

At any rate, as an American swing-voter, I take your words under advisement.  

And thanks for sticking by us in dark days, past and present.  Sorry we're so slow on the draw sometimes.  

[English]

And most Democrats wouldn't be elected in Europe because they're too far to the right there!

Oh, get real! Not this old chestnut again. Have any of you actually been to Europe? Doesn't sound like it.

[MasterJedi]

And most Democrats wouldn't be elected in Europe because they're too far to the right there!

Oh, get real! Not this old chestnut again. Have any of you actually been to Europe? Doesn't sound like it.

Not me personally but some of my friends, conservatives and liberals(one an ultra liberal) have been in Europe and all of them think that it's extremly liberal.

[??????????]

And most Democrats wouldn't be elected in Europe because they're too far to the right there!

Oh, get real! Not this old chestnut again. Have any of you actually been to Europe? Doesn't sound like it.

Have you actually been to the US?

[Michael Z]

And most Democrats wouldn't be elected in Europe because they're too far to the right there!

Oh, get real! Not this old chestnut again. Have any of you actually been to Europe? Doesn't sound like it.

Not me personally but some of my friends, conservatives and liberals(one an ultra liberal) have been in Europe and all of them think that it's extremly liberal.

Europe isn't one entity, countries like Holland are very liberal while countries like Austria are very conservative. You can't generalise there.

[Gabu]

lol, and europeans are being brainwashed?

No, see, you have to realize: Non-Americans know nothing about America.  Americans, on the other hand, know everything about the rest of the world.  They pick it up through osmosis.

[A18]

I never said that. Until the Iraqi war; now I know it to be true.

[Akno21]

I stamped your letter "Return to Sender!"

Most of us in America don't care what you think.

Yes, of course we don't because some of us are among the most arrogant and self-serving people on the face of the earth.

Republicans don't care what Europeans think because they believe the USA doesn't need Europe.

Democrats act like they don't care because they are afraid of being made out as soft on terror and caving in to France by the right-wing media, which dominates a lot of programming.

[freedomburns]

The ugly American of past decades has nothing on the determined ignorance and deliberate obtuseness that those in the middle-America of today have managed to achieve.  IF Bush gets reelected, I am moving to London.  

[English]

And most Democrats wouldn't be elected in Europe because they're too far to the right there!

Oh, get real! Not this old chestnut again. Have any of you actually been to Europe? Doesn't sound like it.

Have you actually been to the US?

Yes, New York several times and Buffalo.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Yes, New York several times and Buffalo.

Buffalo?  Now that is one loser of a town!

[English]

And most Democrats wouldn't be elected in Europe because they're too far to the right there!

Oh, get real! Not this old chestnut again. Have any of you actually been to Europe? Doesn't sound like it.

Not me personally but some of my friends, conservatives and liberals(one an ultra liberal) have been in Europe and all of them think that it's extremly liberal.

Which countries? Visiting Amsterdam does NOT constitute 'visiting Europe', it's visiting Amsterdam.
Hell, it's not even reflective of Holland, which in parts is quite conservative.
Europe is little different than the US, you have liberal big cities and deeply conservative small towns. You have arch conservative regions and very liberal regions. I have travelled all over Europe and parts of North America, conclusion? Europe is NOT that liberal. Certainly nowhere in England is as liberal as Toronto that's for sure!!

[Gabu]

Certainly nowhere in England is as liberal as Toronto that's for sure!!

I can attest to that.  Not that I'm complaining.

[English]

Certainly nowhere in England is as liberal as Toronto that's for sure!!

I can attest to that.  Not that I'm complaining.

Yes, wonderful city. If ever there was proof that liberal cities work, Toronto is it!
We walked around downtown regularly at 2/3am and never once felt remotely threatened. It'd be great if every city was like Toronto it really would.

[English]

Yes, New York several times and Buffalo.

Buffalo?  Now that is one loser of a town!

Admittedly, after seeing Toronto and Hamilton in socialist Canada, it was a dissapointment, but I wouldn't say it was that bad.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I stamped your letter "Return to Sender!"

Most of us in America don't care what you think.

Yes, of course we don't because some of us are among the most arrogant and self-serving people on the face of the earth.

No, it is because some of us don't live life in an effort to please everyone.  Some of us realize that common sense isn't so common and that the majority of the world is going to hate you for standing up for what is right.

I also don't really care what neighbors on my block think of me, I simply know that I don't get into their business and I don't want them in mine.  If I see a neighbor in need, I'm the first to offer help;  otherwise, I expect him to take care of his own business and let me take care of mine.

To those arrogant neighbors who think I have to do everything the same way they do, I quickly make it clear I'm capable of making my own decisions.

[English]

jmfcst, that's why the world hates Bush, exactly because he is constantly sticking his nose to other nations business!!!
France is the most selfish country in Europe and you continually slate them for it. Why is it OK for the US to do what it likes and not France?? A bit hypocritical!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

jmfcst, that's why the world hates Bush, exactly because he is constantly sticking his nose to other nations business!!!
France is the most selfish country in Europe and you continually slate them for it. Why is it OK for the US to do what it likes and not France?? A bit hypocritical!

First)  Did I ever say that France couldn't do what it wanted?  NO!

Second)  The US went to war in Iraq because Iraq broke the terms of the cease fire that ended the first Gulf War.  Somehow, I don't think that constitutes sticking a nose into anyone's business.  

Third)  The US went to war with Afghanistan because that government was sheltering those who openly declared war on the US and planned the attacks of 9/11which killed 2800 Americans....Again, I don't see how that constitutes sticking a nose into anyone's business.

[Gabu]

Second)  The US went to war in Iraq because Iraq broke the terms of the cease fire that ended the first Gulf War.  Somehow, I don't think that constitutes sticking a nose into anyone's business.

I think he's talking more about stuff like, "You're either with us or you're against us!"