NationStates Jolt Archive

I think that it might be VERY helpful to Kerry and very damaging to Bush. Of course, its a bit of a gamble, cos of how bad it would be if Bush does win, but then again, if he does, we're pretty much buggered anyway, so why not?

foreigners need to stay out of american politics

foreigners need to stay out of american politicsLike they should have stayed out of Iraq maybe?

American politics are world politics. They affect everyone

I don't know, Spoff--I don't think it would do Kerry very much good. The American left has a pretty deep distrust of Blair--those who have been paying attention, anyway--because of his toadying up to Bush. I know that Blair is a center-left politician much like Clinton was, but his close association with Bush has poisoned his rep with a lot of Americans.

I don't know, Spoff--I don't think it would do Kerry very much good. The American left has a pretty deep distrust of Blair--those who have been paying attention, anyway--because of his toadying up to Bush. I know that Blair is a center-left politician much like Clinton was, but his close association with Bush has poisoned his rep with a lot of Americans.But, the american left are already voting for Kerry. Bush losing Blair's support could take his knees out with the moderates.

I don't know how many moderates are going to care what Blair thinks, and the potential backlash, the "those damn Brits ain't gonna tell me how to vote" is far greater than whatever benefit that Blair brings to the table.

But that's just me talking--I can't back any of this up.

I think it could seriously damage Bush's credibility...
The US public seems to have a lot of respect for Blair, so him supporting Kerry would certainly change a lot of things.
The Labour Party pretty much unanimously support Kerry, and I'd think the Lib Dems and Conservatives would as well.

I think when it comes to leadership... that France said it best.. The best way to support Kerry is not to say any thing at all.

Americans.. (no one) likes a foreign government telling them how they should vote..

I think when it comes to leadership... that France said it best.. The best way to support Kerry is not to say any thing at all.

Americans.. (no one) likes a foreign government telling them how they should vote..Tell them how to vote... a photo-op together would be fine.

I think that it might be VERY helpful to Kerry and very damaging to Bush. Of course, its a bit of a gamble, cos of how bad it would be if Bush does win, but then again, if he does, we're pretty much buggered anyway, so why not?
However misguided, I think Bush and Blair are "friends" (or whatever passes for friends in world politics), which counts that out. And personally, I think Blair should spend less time meeting with Bush and more time in parliment. We do pay him to run Britain and fundamentally we care more about knowing the NHS and schools are functioning than anything Bush can cook up.

Blair is too shrewd a political player for anything like that. He will continue doing what he has always done: find a way to get along with whomever is in the White House.

Even if Blair were to come out in support of Kerry the effect would be very small if there was any. Kerry's claim that unnamed world leaders have shown support for him had no effect, other than to make the majority of Americans roll thier eyes and sigh. The fact is I, like most Americans, couldn't care less who Blair supports. If Blair were a US citizen his opinion might matter, but as things stand his opinion is as unimportant as yours or mine.

It would be a big help for Kerry if he wins, and a big blow for Britain if Bush wins.

Besides, it seems as it Blair is siding with Bush on this election

However misguided, I think Bush and Blair are "friends.

Ironically enough if you know of the history between Blair and the USA.. Blair and Clinton were far better "friends" they actually really liked each other. Bush is more of a partner in politics to Blair.. they don't share the same friendship as Blair had with Clinton.. in fact in a documentary I seen many suspect Blair fashioned himself after Clinton.. (without the sex scandals..lol)

(without the sex scandals..lol)
That would really spice up the Euro Elections though. :wink:

I do agree that a goodly chunk of American voters dislike it when apparent outsiders try to influence an election -- note what happened to Dean after Gore endorsed him prior to the Iowa primary and New Hampshire caucus.

And there is no guarantee that the left will vote for Kerry. While it is unlikely that hardcore party members will change affiliation in any way, one possible course for the disillusioned is to simply stop voting. Kerry, seen by many as a fairly moderate candidate, doesn't seem likely to me to galvanize the Democratic party efficiently -- although plenty of people disagree and follow the logic that many Democrats will primarily vote "against" Bush, and that the left's campaign would better target the important moderate voting blocs. I would say that many politicians make the mistake of assuming they have the support of their core group and only campaigning to other groups. Again, I'll use Gore as an example -- if he had taken his home state of Tennessee in the 2000 election, he would have won the presidency, but he didn't run a significant campaign there and lost the eleven (if I remember right) electoral votes to Bush.

I do agree that a goodly chunk of American voters dislike it when apparent outsiders try to influence an election -- note what happened to Dean after Gore endorsed him prior to the Iowa primary and New Hampshire caucus.Thats a good point, I guess this might be the biggest issue here, would it help for Blair to support Kerry?

And there is no guarantee that the left will vote for Kerry. While it is unlikely that hardcore party members will change affiliation in any way, one possible course for the disillusioned is to simply stop voting. Kerry, seen by many as a fairly moderate candidate, doesn't seem likely to me to galvanize the Democratic party efficiently -- although plenty of people disagree and follow the logic that many Democrats will primarily vote "against" Bush, and that the left's campaign would better target the important moderate voting blocs. I would say that many politicians make the mistake of assuming they have the support of their core group and only campaigning to other groups. Again, I'll use Gore as an example -- if he had taken his home state of Tennessee in the 2000 election, he would have won the presidency, but he didn't run a significant campaign there and lost the eleven (if I remember right) electoral votes to Bush.I think that against Bush, all democrats bacome yellow dog democrats. The ABB campaign was extrememly sucessful, and got Kerry coming strong out of the gate, rather than bashed around in the traditional fashion of the primaries.

I think that it might be VERY helpful to Kerry and very damaging to Bush. Of course, its a bit of a gamble, cos of how bad it would be if Bush does win, but then again, if he does, we're pretty much buggered anyway, so why not?

No, Blair should stay out of US politics. It is allready a problem with the US involvement in EU country politics (the buy out of Poland to sabotage the EU is a good example, altough 75% of the economic input in its economy comes from EU states).

He also should stay out as a respect to EU (the 15) 's democratic tradition.We don't like it when Powell or Rummy tells us what to do, so we don't have to lower ourselves to the US level or other Banana republics where you can buy elections in the state of your brother. This level in the free world (here), never.


Blair will lose the elections in th eUK because of himself, not because of Labour or the Conservatives.

And W.Bush? Well, that is in the US republic, and the way they think about freedom of speech and democracy. Not our problem, but we should ask via the free world we live in at th enext president more respect for human rights and democracy in that coubtry. We have to help them to regain freedom again, just like we asked the USSR and other opressed people to have some more attention for those rights.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Like it or not, Blair will not lose the next general election here. I agree with most of what's been said here. I watched an interview with Dean yesterday and he was asked a similar question. He dismissed Blair, saying that he'd lost a lot of credibility with the Democrats in the States.
It's also been a long standing understanding between the US and GB that neither will overtly support any candidate in the others elections. However, I suspect that there are a few low level meetings going on between Labour and the Democrats. If, as I hope, Kerry wins, I believe Blair will be mightily relieved. We will still support the US as its best ally but I think after the usual settling in period, Kerry and Blair will be able to manage the Iraq fiasco better than Bush and Blair.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Like it or not, Blair will not lose the next general election here. I agree with most of what's been said here. I watched an interview with Dean yesterday and he was asked a similar question. He dismissed Blair, saying that he'd lost a lot of credibility with the Democrats in the States.
It's also been a long standing understanding between the US and GB that neither will overtly support any candidate in the others elections. However, I suspect that there are a few low level meetings going on between Labour and the Democrats. If, as I hope, Kerry wins, I believe Blair will be mightily relieved. We will still support the US as its best ally but I think after the usual settling in period, Kerry and Blair will be able to manage the Iraq fiasco better than Bush and Blair.

Blair's an "alright chap" (or so I've been told from people who've met him), and certainly popular enough. Some might even say Blair is New Labour. However the party itself might face a battering in the next election, especially if the old guard start making too much noise before the votes are cast. I don't see any thumping 179-seat majority happening again, but I think they'll probably win due to there still being no real, viable opposition.

As for whether Blair should support Kerry - he'll do what any British premier does: side with whoever ends up in the White House, when they end up in it.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Like it or not, Blair will not lose the next general election here. I agree with most of what's been said here. I watched an interview with Dean yesterday and he was asked a similar question. He dismissed Blair, saying that he'd lost a lot of credibility with the Democrats in the States.
It's also been a long standing understanding between the US and GB that neither will overtly support any candidate in the others elections. However, I suspect that there are a few low level meetings going on between Labour and the Democrats. If, as I hope, Kerry wins, I believe Blair will be mightily relieved. We will still support the US as its best ally but I think after the usual settling in period, Kerry and Blair will be able to manage the Iraq fiasco better than Bush and Blair.
Privatizing railroads and charging tuition for public colleges doesn't seem left to me. And if railroads were public and state schools had no tuition, the Democrats wouldn't want to change any of it.

Anyone know Kerry's stances on....anything?

Seriously, he's more two-faced than Janus.

Heck, he's one of my senetors (TEDDY K.!) and I don't even know his stances, having followed politics for the last few years.

Anyone know Kerry's stances on....anything?

Seriously, he's more two-faced than Janus.

People who take the time to educate themselves on the issues and the stances of both Bush and Kerry know where each of them stand, actually.

Janus is indeed running for president: one face is Bush, the other is Kerry.

But... but... but...

Bush AND Blair are BEST FRIENDS.

Haha. Just kidding.

But... but... but...

Bush AND Blair are BEST FRIENDS.

Haha. Just kidding.

Yeah...and they are both 'liberals':)