NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/19/britain.letters.reut/index.htm

WTF is up with this? What would citizens of the U.K. do if I tried to tell them how to vote?

It may just be my PC but the link doesn't seem to work...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/19/britain.letters.reut/index.htm

WTF is up with this? What would citizens of the U.K. do if I tried to tell them how to vote?

We'd listen to your opinions just in case you had something worthwhile to say.

Link was dead for me.

It's unlikely that the Guardian itself would be saying "Vote Kerry" or whatever, however it's quite possible that a columnist would be saying as much. It's much like a Democrat columnist in an American paper saying the same thing.

It doesn't really matter. If I say, "Don't vote for Abbot & Costello,"...

...sorry, Bush & Cheney.

If I say that, you don't have to listen, do you? So, what's the difference between a citizen of your own country and a citizen of another telling you which way to vote? It's just words, meine freunde, just words. They're not compelling you to do anything, merely suggesting. They're allowed to.

Link wouldn't work for me, but here's my two cents...

Whoever the leader of Britain is won't affect America, and therefore Americans would never tell us Brits how to vote. However, the leader of America makes decisions that affect us greatly. And we can't do anything about that but put forward our views (views which have no legal effect) on who we think should win the American election.

Plus, that's only one columnist's opinion. It's not like Tony Blair himself is standing up and saying, "AMERICANS, VOTE FOR BUSH/KERRY!"

Thats ok, I saw where some Europeans were saying that because the election also affects their lives that they should also be allowed to vote as well.

Fine....as long as they want to start paying US taxes and Social Security too I don't have a problem with it.

Thats ok, I saw where some Europeans were saying that because the election also affects their lives that they should also be allowed to vote as well.

Fine....as long as they want to start paying US taxes and Social Security too I don't have a problem with it.
God no, I don't want to vote. It's your country not mine. I just wish Tony Blair wouldn't keep dragging us into your affairs. And as that seems unlikely... what's wrong with saying who we think (THINK) should be made President?

God no, I don't want to vote. It's your country not mine. I just wish Tony Blair wouldn't keep dragging us into your affairs. And as that seems unlikely... what's wrong with saying who we think (THINK) should be made President?

Nothing at all wrong with that. This election has the potential to rip the fabric of our society greatly. People are almost waving fists at each other now. I can't wait to go vote in a couple of weeks. Why anyone else would want to jump into this dogfight is beyond me.

Why anyone else would want to jump into this dogfight is beyond me.
Because it's important.

Because it's important.

It has gotten beyond that here. It is being taken personally by a large percentage of the population. It is bizarre.

I found the article on the CNN Website, here it is:

LONDON, England (Reuters) -- A pro-Kerry letter-writing campaign by Britain's left-leaning Guardian newspaper, targeting undecided U.S. voters, has provoked outrage across the Atlantic.

The paper has encouraged its readers to express their opinions on the November 2 presidential election to voters in the key swing state of Ohio -- to the fury of Clark County, about 45 miles west of Columbus, the state capital.

"Hey England, Scotland and Wales, mind your own business. We don't need weenie-spined Limeys meddling in our presidential election," was one of the e-mail reactions to the campaign.

The Fox national cable television network tore into the newspaper and even John Kerry's own Democrats expressed horror at the campaign.

"We all feel it is not a good idea. I think it was unwise. It is so poorly thought-out," said Sharon Manitta, spokeswoman in Britain for Democrats Abroad.

But the newspaper, whose cartoons regularly portray President George W. Bush as a semi-literate ape, was unrepentant.

"We did consult a number of opinions and made our decision accordingly," assistant features editor Paul MacInnes told Reuters. "It has been an operation to give our readers an opportunity to express their opinions."

With just two weeks to go before the election, Kerry is running neck and neck with Republican incumbent Bush.

Ohio is a key swing state which Bush won by just four percentage points in 2000, and Clark County is at its heart.

The campaign is a bid to sway voters on the county's electoral register who have declared themselves undecided.

As of Monday night, more than 14,000 people had registered to write to a voter in Clark County, which has a population of just 143,000.

Individuals like film director Ken Loach, spy writer John Le Carre, historian Antonia Fraser and opposition Liberal Democratic parliamentarian Menzies Campbell have all written in their own capacity -- not that their names necessarily carry much weight in Clark.

The Guardian, which simply bought a list of registered voters and extracted the undecided, pledged that it would only give out the name of each voter once, to avoid them being swamped by unsolicited mail from complete strangers.

"We know that in many ways this is the world's election, and we understand the passion and concern in many parts of the world over it. But I wonder how people here in the UK would react to Americans telling them how to vote," Democrats Abroad's Manitta said.

"This will certainly garner more votes for George Bush. I have strongly advised other media entities who have come to me and suggested this against doing so," she added.

While some e-mails to the Guardian from Democrats in Ohio were supportive, others suggested the campaign was misguided.

But their mild admonitions paled into insignificance against the more reactionary views received by the paper.

"Real Americans aren't interested in your pansy-ass, tea-sipping opinions. If you want to save the world, begin with you own worthless corner of it," wrote one from Texas.

Whether or not it was a good idea, what has horrified me has been the outpouring of anti-British racism and racial stereotyping.

I would also like to know: do all Americans think that "They [the British] are still bitter over 1776. It's obvious many English long for the good old days when they controlled the "colonies."?

It's no surprise that there's news that are politically bias. But its damn hard to find one that isn't. But yet give the full facts into everything.

Whether or not it was a good idea, what has horrified me has been the outpouring of anti-British racism and racial stereotyping.

I would also like to know: do all Americans think that "They [the British] are still bitter over 1776. It's obvious many English long for the good old days when they controlled the "colonies."?

No, it is juat a reaction to what some see as "meddling" in what has become a very heated election year. Some people react differently from others. I would rather NOT see such a campaign. Here in Florida we are drowning in political ads and mail. I must get 5-10 political mailings and phone calls every day!! If I was to get one from another country telling me how to vote I might say some things I should'nt too.....

Whether or not it was a good idea, what has horrified me has been the outpouring of anti-British racism and racial stereotyping.

I would also like to know: do all Americans think that "They [the British] are still bitter over 1776. It's obvious many English long for the good old days when they controlled the "colonies."?
All the Brits who write in are saying that Americans are too stupid to choose their own leaders and need the Brits to pick for them. Excuse us if we don't take that the "right way." I don't think the British care too much about the fact we rebelled way back when, I imagine they're more concerned with issues that didn't happen 200 years ago...

I don't really understand why some Americans on here are saying "How dare they tell us how to vote" etc etc. The USA is forever trumpeting itself as the guardian of democracy and the land of the free etc, yet as soon as somebody expresses an opinion on the USA these principles don't seem to apply.

The government (let alone its press) of the USA has supported certain parties over others in other countries in the past (eg Chile), and I'm sure opinion sections of the American press express opinions on the politics of other countries from time to time. It's no different for Europeans to express their opinion. You have no need to worry about it, unless they hold American citizenship they can't actually vote. So, please engage us on the argument for/against your various candidates/politics/issues if that's what we choose to debate rather than running away by dismissing the very fact that we hold an opinion.

I don't really understand why some Americans on here are saying "How dare they tell us how to vote" etc etc. The USA is forever trumpeting itself as the guardian of democracy and the land of the free etc, yet as soon as somebody expresses an opinion on the USA these principles don't seem to apply.

The government (let alone its press) of the USA has supported certain parties over others in other countries in the past (eg Chile), and I'm sure opinion sections of the American press express opinions on the politics of other countries from time to time. It's no different for Europeans to express their opinion. You have no need to worry about it, unless they hold American citizenship they can't actually vote. So, please engage us on the argument for/against your various candidates/politics/issues if that's what we choose to debate rather than running away by dismissing the very fact that we hold an opinion.
Have whatever the hell opinion you want. Just don't force it into our mailboxes.

Have whatever the hell opinion you want. Just don't force it into our mailboxes.

We don't, you don't have to read it, in the same way as I don't have to watch CNN or Fox News. I choose to so that I can try and understand the fullest possible breadth of viewpoints and opinions out there.

The Guardian should not have done that.

Idiots on both sides. The British people are simply telling us that they REALLY don't like George Bush, which we already knew. But the reaction was too overwhelming. I quote:

"Real Americans aren't interested in your pansy-ass, tea-sipping opinions. If you want to save the world, begin with you own worthless corner of it," wrote one from Texas, while another, from outraged of New York, ended by advising "yellow-teethed Britons" to wash out their mouths."

The British ought not to directly write the voters, and the voters ought not to snap their heads off when the British try. They are only cautioning us as friends. Last time I checked, Britain WAS our friend.

The Guardian should not have done that.

I agree, but it's not worth a massive uproar.

The government (let alone its press) of the USA has supported certain parties over others in other countries in the past (eg Chile)
The past? How about the present? It's clear that Washington makes no secret of its support for the Venezuelan opponents of Hugo Chavez - to pick just one example.

Damn Britain and that crazy freedom of speech idea they have!

By the way, since when did the guardian beome left wing?

Damn Britain and that crazy freedom of speech idea they have!

By the way, since when did the guardian beome left wing?
The Guardian is generally regarded (and I speak as a reader here) as being a liberal or left-wing paper, though this should not be read as biased (and yes I do realise that many people of a certain type will take it to be the same thing)...

I don't really understand why some Americans on here are saying "How dare they tell us how to vote" etc etc. The USA is forever trumpeting itself as the guardian of democracy and the land of the free etc, yet as soon as somebody expresses an opinion on the USA these principles don't seem to apply.

The government (let alone its press) of the USA has supported certain parties over others in other countries in the past (eg Chile), and I'm sure opinion sections of the American press express opinions on the politics of other countries from time to time. It's no different for Europeans to express their opinion. You have no need to worry about it, unless they hold American citizenship they can't actually vote. So, please engage us on the argument for/against your various candidates/politics/issues if that's what we choose to debate rather than running away by dismissing the very fact that we hold an opinion.

The difference is that they are encouraging people to write letters to voters to try and persuade them to vote for one candidate in particular. Now having OPINIONS is perfectly ok, but a mailing campaign from someone who is not DIRECTLY affected by the vote is disingenuous at best and "meddling" at worst.

We don't, you don't have to read it, in the same way as I don't have to watch CNN or Fox News. I choose to so that I can try and understand the fullest possible breadth of viewpoints and opinions out there.
No, Fox News doesn't turn itself on when we walk in, we have to sort through mail, since that arrives no matter what.

When I saw the report on this in the news I thought it was laughable.

I'd like to see all the replies...

The people in the United Kingdom aren't in touch with the life and needs of the American people. They [The Brits] can express their opinion and all, but campaigning against Bush is something else. I hate President Bush, but I don't want the U.K. to be actively working against him in Ohio. I mean the average British citizen probably doesn't even know where Ohio is. Americans don't need help deciding, so don't try to influence it. I'd take the same position if the tables were turned too.

No, Fox News doesn't turn itself on when we walk in, we have to sort through mail, since that arrives no matter what.

Gosh, you're right.. and what a horrible thought Fox News turning itself on everytime one walked in would be :) .

It's true that it is an extreme form of lobbying, but given the current passions and strong feelings against the current American administration, I can understand it. I have never known an American President / government be so unpopular across the board amongst Europeans.

The past? How about the present? It's clear that Washington makes no secret of its support for the Venezuelan opponents of Hugo Chavez - to pick just one example.

Yes, you are right.

And just recently President Bush blatently and undiplmatically expressed his opinion on Turkish membership of the EU:

"For decades, my country has supported greater unity in Europe - to secure liberty, build prosperity, and remove sources of conflict on this continent. Now the European Union is considering the admission of Turkey, and you are moving rapidly to meet the criteria for membership. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk had a vision of Turkey as a strong nation among other European nations. That dream can be realized by this generation of Turks. America believes that as a European power, Turkey belongs in the European Union. Your membership would also be a crucial advance in relations between the Muslim world and the West, because you are part of both. Including Turkey in the EU would prove that Europe is not the exclusive club of a single religion, and it would expose the "clash of civilizations" as a passing myth of history. Fifteen years ago, an artificial line that divided Europe -- drawn at Yalta - was erased. Now this continent has the opportunity to erase another artificial division - by fully including Turkey in it".

One could ask, what right does the President of the USA have to tell the EU who it should admit?

The fact is that whilst our media and people express opinions on politics in foreign countries (eg USA), I haven't heard any major European leader be as undiplomatic as to say "I want Kerry to beat Bush", even though many probably hold that opinion privately. It just isn't how things are done. That to me is more of an issue than people and the press holding an opinion.

Haha. If an American says vote for X, that's okay.
If an American lies and decives and uses that to argue: 'vote for X', that's okay.
If a non-American says vote for X, that's not okay.
Chauvenistic idiots

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/19/britain.letters.reut/index.htm

WTF is up with this? What would citizens of the U.K. do if I tried to tell them how to vote?

Well, the US as bombed entire countries, supported military coups that put dictators in power and stuff like that. Why can't the good citizens of Britain, your mother-country, whose goverment supports yours, advise you were to vote?


PS: I am a European, and i say VOTE BUSH. Really, i believe Europe is more progressive than the US, so it is of my interest to see it sink.
VOTE BUSH!

Haha. If an American says vote for X, that's okay.
If an American lies and decives and uses that to argue: 'vote for X', that's okay.
If a non-American says vote for X, that's not okay.
Chauvenistic idiots
First of all, learn what words mean before you use them. Secondly, if American says vote for X, that's ok. If a European says vote for X, that's ok. If an American OR European sends letters to you, emails you, calls you, or approaches you and says vote for X, that's not okay.

Well, the US as bombed entire countries, supported military coups that put dictators in power and stuff like that. Why can't the good citizens of Britain, your mother-country, whose goverment supports yours, advise you were to vote?


PS: I am a European, and i say VOTE BUSH. Really, i believe Europe is more progressive than the US, so it is of my interest to see it sink.
VOTE BUSH!

The Europeans have never done those things? Yeah....they certainly were peaceful when they brought their smallpox here to the "new world" and spread it around. Europe has had more dictators than ANY other continent by far, and the most violent. Yes...they are very "progressive."

Well, my favorate newspaper in the headlines in the US, well done Guardian, as for what the Americans have to say about it, I'm pritty horrified about some of the sterio-typing thats going on. But then agaijn, your all big fat ignorant yanks, so what do you know?

Well, my favorate newspaper in the headlines in the US, well done Guardian, as for what the Americans have to say about it, I'm pritty horrified about some of the sterio-typing thats going on. But then agaijn, your all big fat ignorant yanks, so what do you know?

What's this "big fat ignorant yanks" I supposedly have?

The Europeans have never done those things? Yeah....they certainly were peaceful when they brought their smallpox here to the "new world" and spread it around. Europe has had more dictators than ANY other continent by far, and the most violent. Yes...they are very "progressive."
Civillisation has been around in Europe for far longer as well.

Asia: Gangas Kanh, several of the Morgul emporers, the Tippoo sultan, most if the leaders of Myorse, some of the Chinise Emporers. North Korian Emporers, Indian leaders...

Africa: Never really developed, those parts of it that did had dictators and where built on the backs of the slave trade.

North America: Settled by Europians 200 years ago, by that rtime most Europians where civillised with less dicatorial regimes, thus North America didn't have them.

Civillisation has been around in Europe for far longer as well.

Asia: Gangas Kanh, several of the Morgul emporers, the Tippoo sultan, most if the leaders of Myorse, some of the Chinise Emporers. North Korian Emporers, Indian leaders...

Africa: Never really developed, those parts of it that did had dictators and where built on the backs of the slave trade.

North America: Settled by Europians 200 years ago, by that rtime most Europians where civillised with less dicatorial regimes, thus North America didn't have them.

Africa....colonised and ruled by europeans for a few hundred years.

North America as well until the colonists broke free. You might not call a king a dictator, but I would. Royal families have no place in the 21st century....anywhere.

The Europeans have never done those things? Yeah....they certainly were peaceful when they brought their smallpox here to the "new world" and spread it around. Europe has had more dictators than ANY other continent by far, and the most violent. Yes...they are very "progressive."
What does it matter what we did hundreds of years ago? We are progressive now.

LMAO, encouraging people to write letters? Is that all they're doing?

I bet the Guardian won't be throwing a tantrum and changing the results of the election if it doesn't go the way the editors want...which is what the Americans traditionally do with other countries where the people are sufficiently poor and black. :rolleyes:

This was funny. The replies from the Americans they got were so funny, "you limey-bastards" lol.

I can't see how The Guardian could be serious about this, but I can understand why it was taken so seriously by Americans. It's none of our business at the end of the day who you elect. . . Although the French would very much like it to be.

Much ado about nothing imo

Well, the Brits hold the right to an oppion, no matter what it is. Frankly, this whole thing made me laugh, especially the American that called Brits quote "Weenie spined", or "Tea-sipping."

I'll bet they'll be changing dog breeds next. I can see it now, the Irish Setter, becomes the Freedom Setter. :rolleyes:

Of course, who you urge your voter to support is entirely up to you.

Hmmm....I must have missed the part where it said "Vote Kerry."

Hmmm....I must have missed the part where it said "Vote Kerry."

Agreed. The Guardian carefully did not tell their readers which candidate to extoll.

As the links didn't work for everyone, here's another try. Hopefully everyone will have the chance to read the actual article, and not just hypothesize about it's contents.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1326033,00.html

If the link doesn't work, googling Guardian election letter writing campaign works as well.