Tim Blair

I'd be interested in a poll that measures how Americans' view of Australia has changed since your election. I, for one, applaud your rejection of the left-wing agenda, and I'm thinking if Kerry and his ilk come to power here and screw up our fabulous democracy I might have to seek refuge down under.

My condolences to those who are remembering the anniversary of the Bali bombing. I just hope in six months we're not talking about fears that the Americans might abandon the Australians in the war on terror.

Well it will be interesting to see how little Americans love Bush once they wake from their slumber and see how incompetent his administration is : http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=akgTO2BB5RdA&refer=us

I find it amazing that individuals such as yourself (and your sycophantic commentary rabble) could honestly support an administration this reckless and inept.

YoJimbo to La Presse and timblairtheincomprehensible: who cares! Chaleur-off.

Methinks poster #2 sounds like the folks who just lost the Australian elections, eh? Sour grapes down there will soon taste just as sour up here.

Who gives a rat's ass what Canada thinks. We got the guns.

"The ambitious exercise, initiated by Canada's Quebec-based La Presse"

good to see the french/canadians digging into the US election .

"Viva La Democratie!"

Gee, they don't seem to have polled the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. Wonder why!

The SMH is the local leftie rag - they backed Latham to win over Howard in our elections last week and talked him up mercilessly for weeks.

Howard was returned in a landslide. Only the 'journalists' of the leftwing media were surprised.

Take no notice of the SMH, they are the mouthpiece of the far left and are still in mourning for the 'stolen election' (Australians are idiots who were duped by Evil Howard and his minions, according the local lefties).

Speaking of Canada...

The Canadian Report on Business TV website (robtv.com) had an interview with Donald Coxe, chief strategist of BMO Financial Group, on Thursday. There was a call in question from an American living in Canada and voting by absentee ballot in Virginia. He asked which candidate would be best for Canada since that's where he was going to continue to live. Mr. Coxe's immediate answer was George Bush because of his free trade stand vs. the "Benedict Arnold CEOs" attitude of Mr. Kerry who was the candidate of the protectionist wing of the Democrats.

The drive to get American ex pats to vote seems to assume they will vote for Kerry. Not necessarily so.

I wonder if the polls quoted by the SMH are as accurate as the ones running up until last weekend, predicting Latham would now be our PM?

Gee, they don't seem to have polled the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. Wonder why!

Because brown people don't matter.

Don't think much has changed , Foreign Affairs Oct 1973, Europeans see US as a rogue elephant in the forest..whose economic might is such that she can lash out despite the recent downturn in her monetary fortunes. or US are a people animated by a will to power cloaked in idealism,etc. France sought to discourage US hegemonic ambitions in both the military and economic spheres. Yanks don't have the subtlety necessary for dealing with Europe. And the article talked about full pull out of Us forces from Europe, problems with US balance of payments defecit. Don't know why the Yanks don't end their problems now and pull back all of the forces in Europe and Asia.
The major differences, no Bush to blame. Clinton was of course loathed in his time. Recall a 1999 article describing how much the US was hated in the middle east. Again no Bush to blame.
Hope the Yanks don't fall for this never ending envy of a Europe that just can't claw it's way back.

Well that proves one thing-its going to a be a BUSH victory

Syria,
Saudi Arabia,
France,
Germany
Sudan
China
Russia
Spain
Malaysia

The demolitiom of democracy by the coalition of the Corrupt and Cowardly -appeasers/supporters of terrorism all- Anti West- and -WHY WOULD Goverments who were up to their shoulders in secret deals with Saddam not hate the West For exposing them for what they are.
Sure they would want one of their own to control the good folk of the USA so that they can keep rorting the US Taxpayer and make them pay for their own destruction.
BRING IT OOOOOOOOOOOOOOON GEORGE
BRING IT ON

"World" also wanted Latham to replace Howard. Losers.

Hey Waffle King: I voted for Howard but sure as hell wouldn't vote for Bush.
Howard's mob are brilliant economic managers. Bush aint.
And Dee, get your facts right. The SMH for the first time in its 173-year history did not favour any party in its election eve editorial. It's previously always supported the Libs (conservatives).
As for being a mouthpiece of the far left; get real.
Soft left chattering classes maybe but hardly the rabid Trotskyite nutters who write for and read the Green Left Weekly. (Well, except maybe Secco!)

"The souring view is directly linked to public dissatisfaction with Mr Bush, mainly over his prosecution of the Iraq war."

Can we tack this statement to Tim's refrigerator, in case of a Bush win, and they tell us "In spite of widespread opposition to IRAQWARWRONG, the American election seemed to be decided by the voters stand on the Federal Marriage Amendment Act thingy."

BH, get your facts right. Eve editorials favouring nobody, as opposed to ludicrously anti-Howard reporting for months. Wonder which is more effectual, or more indicative of the paper's position?

Bush has delivered good growth, and his tax cuts saw an end to the Clinton recession.

Sheriff,
of course the SMH is a bunch of lefties so you're spot on there.
But trying to paint Bush as a good economic manager! You have seriously left the planet! Two record deficits in a row - the biggest corporate collapses in history, first president under which jobs have been lost! C'mon for the sake of genuine Republicans we want this man out otherwise we're in the wilderness for a long time politically. Bush is bad news, even if you're a conservative. He'll bankrupt us.

We seem to be overrun with DNC operatives. Back! Back!

I like the idea of a war going to plan. So far its never happened.

BH, I havent read the Green Weekly - if the SMH is conservative in comparison, it must be an interesting read.

You may be correct in stating that the SMH has previously supported the Libs, but during the time I have been reading it (the past couple of years), the POV has been relentlessly leftie - eg, the headline today was "World wants Kerry to beat Bush'. The WORLD? Or do they mean the readers of leftie newspapers like The Guardian and the SMH?

Not to mention the idiot ravings of people like Margo Kingston.

If the world wants me to care who it wants for my President it had better pay my tax bill first.

SMH used to be the old patrician conservative paper until the 1970s.

Back in those days the Murdoch press were big Whitlam-backers.

The Herald Sun's Terry McCrann, pre-empting Le Presse by at least a fortnight, wrote this:

It's a rare treat when a stupid journalist embarked on writing a silly article, announces their stupidity in the opening paragraph. In Monday's Age, the Guardian's -- now that's an exquisite pairing -- Jonathan Friedland opened with the declamation there was a reason "every newspaper in the world will have the same story on its front page on November 3". The story being, the result of the US presidential election. Leave aside the very basic silliness of such a claim -- I think it's a fair bet there'll be some newspapers in the world, which even having the story, won't put it on their front page. The cluey among you might see where I'm heading. I'm prepared to state with absolute certainty, the election result won't be on the front page of any morning newspaper in Australia on November 3. Because it won't have happened by the time the newspaper hits your front lawn, far less the deadline earlier that morning for getting stories in. It'll be nearly noon on November 3 in Australia before the polls have even closed in the US mid-west. So even if it's not a repeat of 2000, the story can't be in our papers that day. This might be excused as a 'slip of a journalistic flourish.' Except -- very deliberate -- stupid start, to stupid article. Because Friedland wants to build on the 'journalistic flourish' that 'everyone' has a stake in the US election, so 'everyone' -- literally -- should get to vote in the US election. The sheer stupidity of his 'cleverness' never gets close to breaking through his unconciousness. Even right at the end of the article, he bemoans the fact that Bush's overwhelming unpopularity in places like France and Germany, probably hurts John Kerry. Suggesting -- and I'm not making this up, Friedland was actually that unknowing that he wrote -- that Kerry "is the candidate of limp-wristed foreigners". It of course hasn't occurred to Friedland, that America is what it is -- politically, militarily and above all economically -- precisely because those 'limp-wristed foreigners' never get to vote in US elections. Otherwise it would be like Germany and France. Full-service basket cases. Nor that just maybe it would be a good idea for three or four billion people to get to vote in elections in their own countries before they voted in the US. Although that's the real import of his time zone mistake. Despite purporting to speak for the masses, his 'world' actually runs between Washington and Berlin. His last line was a classic. A perfect bookend to his opening. "In the democratic contest that matters most to the world, the world is disenfranchised."

The coverage I heard on this story said that the "only" countries supporting Bush were Israel and Russia.

While I'm not thrilled with Putin's drive to autocracy, I don't mind being in that company. It appears that the people who have seen terrorism hit them at home are more likely to support fighting it.

I really don't care what polls from around the world reflect about George Bush. Those folks in France can dry up and blow away in the wind and they can take their friends with them.

I voted for W in 2000 and will vote for him again in a couple of weeks.

The 'world' has not always been on the US side. Remember the cold war - Europe was ablaze with anti US rhetoric when Reagan pushed to get missiles into Europe to counter the Soviet threat.

Bush as an economic steward - I recall conomists advising that the US lost one trillion dollars because of the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center. Additionally, it was also estimated that the vast majority of the job losses occurred within 90 days after the attack.

Bush may be a bad steward of the economy. But I suggest you get past the headlines and look a bit closer at the record. Record deficit - maybe in dollars but how about as a percentage of GDP. Terrible unemployment/employment situation - how about as a percentage instead of numbers of people.

Bush will win, he is surging home to victory while Kerry is floundering on the verge of collapse.
Bush will bring it home in the last two weeks, 56% to 42% margin, he'll win Pennsylvania,New Jersey all the key states Florida, Ohio, Virginia, all the South, Oregon, Arizona
40+ landslide.

The world wants the SMH to f*** off.

One thing the Australian elections proved is that the media is totally out of touch with reality.
I read on an ALP blog after the elections someone who said that the reason that Labor got it so wrong because they didn't take into account that all Green's supporters are all too willing to say who they will vote for and therefore there were no Green's in the undecided.
For some strange reason the left blogs (in the US) mobilise to swamp alot of polls. This can only work against them in my opinion.
All I can say is that from media who are decidedly Kerry supporters - and who I'm sure are trying to make US citizens feel alone - please, look at what happened here and understand that the silent majority who are the media do not speak for are for the US.

And what makes these cretins think that Americans give a damn what they think about our Presidential election. Headlines like this should be a clear clue to Americans that there is only one choice is this election and its not "the world's choice".

C'mon for the sake of genuine Republicans . . .

Faker. Didn't mention spending once, didja, Moby?

I'm also expecting a landslide here in the USA for Bush. This country was founded on giving the finger to people across the water, and I'd like to extend the tradition towards the editors of SMH, and all the citizens of other countries that would love to see the ultimate American pushover elected as President.

Would the people who don't want me to vote for Bush please provide me with some other down ballot selections they want me to vote for? Such as state and local ballot slots. And since you want me to vote for somebody in the Democratic party, what are you going to give me? My vote ain't cheap.

So a bunch of people say their view has worsened. Be interesting to know how much they loved the US beforehand.

The full results of the poll are at: here.

- overwhelmingly, respondents have a favourable opinion of Americans
- overwhelmingly, respondents think it's important that the US plays a leadership role in world affairs
- on the whole, respondents believe the US democracy remains a model for other nations.

So, the poll isn't saying respondents hate America, they just hate Bush.

Screw any biased media.

God Bless the internet.

I have only one thing to say to those people who live outside America and yet want to meddle in our national business:

Fuck off.

Can anyone tell me where to find a high-res graphic of that front page on line? It would make a killer protest sign.

Under the heading "Fuck the World," of course.

I have only one thing to say to those people who live outside America and yet want to meddle in our national business:


Fuck off.

When the US chooses to play such an influentual role on global affairs, whether they be political, economic, or social, the citizens of all those nations affected have the right to an opinion and the right to express it. That's what freedom's all about, right?

Yeah, t_diddy, you have a right to your stupid opinion. Opinions, as they say, are like assholes - everybody has one.

But the simple fact that you have an opinion doesn't mean we have to listen to it.

Fuck off, dude.

haha, nice one mojo, you don't even know what my opinion is, aside from the fact that eveyone has the right to one, even people who respond with "fuck off" to anyone they suspect might have one different to theirs.

The point, dear boy, is that I don't care what your opinion is.

When the US "chooses" to play such an influential role????

Did we "choose" either World War? Those are how we built our military strength, upon which Europe still depends, and the US tried for awhile not to be "influential" in either one.

As far as anything we do in other nations, well, as Julie Burchill once pointed out when she was still deemed lefty enough to write for the esteemed Guardian, America is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't, no matter what it "chooses." As you've pointed out, t-diddy, every nation and every person in them has different ideas about what the US should and should not do. It would be insane to try to please everyone; there will always be large world populations mad at us, no matter what. And people wonder why we're unilateral?

what, unless it's the same as yours?

Some of you might be wondering why it is that my fellow Americans become, er, *colorful* when informed about world opinion concerning our internal affairs.

(caveat - I can only speak for my fellow Red-staters and security/defense minded voters. Regretfully, many of my countrymen disagree with our point of view. I wish their disagreement made some sense to me)

Primarily, it is a reaction to what we see as meddling in our 'family' affairs. If citizens of other nations would like to express an opinion in our national elections, they are welcome to immigrate to the United States, become citizens, and register to vote. Otherwise, I'm afraid we won't give much weight to 'world opinion'.

Secondly, to many Americans, we have found ourselves thrust into a rather unpleasant religious war, fought against shadowy people who would like nothing better to chop off our heads for no good reason we can see. After our enemies murdered three thousand of my countrymen, we found ourselves doing our best to fight back. In that fight, we have found that our Republic had quite a lot of fair weather friends, and several adversaries that had been feigning friendship. (Of course, we also found that we have some rock-solid allies, and rest assured that we Red-Staters at least will not forget it)

So, you see, my nation - powerful as it is - has been ruthlessly attacked, then found itself betrayed by quite a few nations we thought were our friends. Faced with this, we have gritted our teeth, banked the fires of our anger, and resolved to keep up the fight. (even if Kerry is elected, we'll keep fighting. Perhaps it will be a different kind of fight, but there can be no peace until one side is beaten) To those who have chosen to stand with us in our long, twilight struggle, we are deeply grateful. To those who have chosen to stand aside, or to work against us, we have contempt, anger, and defiance.

Thus the crass, rude, Cowboy response when told that 'world opinion' does not like our president, and hopes for his defeat. He may be an ogre in Germany & France, but in many parts of his own nation, he is a beloved and deeply respected leader. (please refrain from spamming Tim's comments section with all the negative things you can think of to say about W. I've heard it all before, thanks, and none of it will deflect my faith in this man one whit)

Finally, many Americans, like me (with any luck a majority come early November) believe of President George W. Bush what Lincoln said of Grant. "I can't spare this man. He fights."

Suellen,

I most certainly agree, Europe and so many other countries, including Australia, rely very heavily on the influence of the US for their own security.

My point was in response Tim's speculation about the anti-Americanism of the survey respondents, to which I think it's relevant to point out that respondents *like* Americans, *support* the US's leadership role in global affiars, *believe* that the US is a good model for democracy, they just don't like Bush.

Little surprise then that further responses Bush-ophiles is to attack the survey as biased or tell them (or me) to "fuck off".

"When the US chooses to play such an influentual role on global affairs"

Hey t-diddy-doo, if you are from Australia, describe to me all the instances of US media, any government statements, etc, attempting to influence the recent Australian election, or even expressing a strong preference either way ?

If you are not from Australia, then my opinion is that if your shithole of a country is so insignificant as to be so easily affected by the US, then this is certainly no fault of ours -- you should fuck off and concentrate on fixing that problem instead of whining, you twerp.

I think "fuck off" is only a colorful way to say "if they don't like Bush, that's their problem." Which of course is the whole point. We elect our own leaders, and if the rest of the world doesn't like it they can certainly say so. But when they go farther and start trying to meddle in an actual election with media propaganda, slanted polls, letter-writing campaigns, etc., I think Americans are certainly justified in saying "fuck off."

Posted by: t_diddy at October 16, 2004 at 02:21 AM
"When the US chooses to play such an influentual role on global affairs, whether they be political, economic, or social, the citizens of all those nations affected have the right to an opinion and the right to express it. That's what freedom's all about, right?"
What you need to do is deal with your own impotence, rather than express your nonsense...whether you or they need intellectual or economic viagra, you won't get it free from the US. The US is pitifully loathed because it accomplishes. Start your own critiques from within.

Carl, Richard Armitage and Tom Scheiffer certainly made statements of opinion regarding domestic politics in Australia. It doesn't bother me at all that they did... like everyone else, they have an opinion and the right to express it. Of course the US media wouldn't waste their time covering the Australian election as it's of no consequence to the US. However let's not forget the government and conservative media campaign against the French and other European countries over the war, because they believed they were acting against the interests of the US. I'm not here to say whether the opinions on either side were right or wrong, but the sentiments expressed then were far more extreme than merely asking "Would you prefer Bush or Kerry to be elected President", and far more hateful given that in this survey, sentiments are overwhelmingly in favour of the US.

The US is pitifully loathed because it accomplishes.

No it's not. That's the whole point. This survey highlights the fact that in nearly all the countries included, the majority are very PRO-US. All it's saying is the majority of respondents, just like 40%-52% of US electors (depending on which survey you choose to believe) think Kerry would make a better president than Bush.

I'd like to take issue with mojo and the Wolfgod on one issue: this American would be more than happy to see foreigners take part in our elections. All I would ask is that each ballot be attached to a completed Form 1040; make your check payable to "Internal Revenue Service".

Paul Z: "All I would ask is that each ballot be attached to a completed Form 1040; make your check payable to "Internal Revenue Service"."

:)

Interesting idea - a 'pay to vote' in American elections. Or, perhaps, we American voters can merely place our vote up for auction on E-bay the week before the election. (I'd have to move to a swing state so I'd be worth more!)

>the biggest corporate collapses
>in history

That is Bush's fault how?

>first president under which
>jobs have been lost!

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Thank you for writing the absolutely stupidest thing I have ever read! Tears of laughter are streaming down my face!

So, jobs weren't lost under Carter? How about Hoover? You know, 1929?

The unemployment rate is about what it was under Clinton. And Clinton had the Internet boom. Bush had 9/11.

That was priceless, dude.

No one in the U.S. gives a rat's ass what the French street thinks about our elected leaders or our policies. It's actually a negative politically in the U.S. to have foreign backing--a fact about which the international left seems blissfully ignorant. The U.S. public, with small exceptions in the academe and the elites, overwhelmingly loathes the idea that the U.S. would be in any way subservient to international opinion or international institutions. Bush is currently beating Kerry up with the notion that Kerry would defer to the U.N. or have to pass a "global test" for U.S. action. No politician in his right mind here (outside of Massachusetts or San Francisco) would propose ratifying Kyoto or the International Criminal Court. Do foreign newspapers simply not report these attitudes by the American public ?

The notion that Bush has presided over an economic disaster is a combination of spin and the accepted mythology that the U.S. President actually has some substantial degree of control over the U.S. economy. Although a president and Congress can occasionally make things much worse, e.g., Smoot-Hawley in the 30's, presidents generally have very little influence on the economy, for good or bad, except around the margins. It is a time-honored ritual, however, for presidents to claim undeserved credit for a good economy, e.g., Clinton, and for their opponents to blame them undeservedly for a bad economy. The current economy is actually pretty good by any historical standard and especially considering the drag that terrorism, and all the measures to counteract terrorism, and the price of oil are imposing. The unemployment rate, for all the teeth-gnashing, is the same as in 1996, when Clinton was overwhelmingly reelected. The false suggestion that the U.S. economy is bad is based on a misleading comparison to the bubble economy of the late 1990's. It's glorious to get drunk, but the hangover can be intense. Our hangover has only been for 2 or 3 years; Bush's tax cuts probably helped marginally in getting it going. Japan's hangover has been about 15 years and counting.

My point was in response Tim's speculation about the anti-Americanism of the survey respondents, to which I think it's relevant to point out that respondents *like* Americans, *support* the US's leadership role in global affiars, *believe* that the US is a good model for democracy, they just don't like Bush.

Which is utter nonsense, despite what the poll responders might have said. Being a EuroWeenie myself, I'd like to point out that the problem isn't that Bush has somehow corrupted "What America Stands For", it's that he's actually more representative of the country than either Clinton or Bush senior. When people say they "like the U.S." or "like Americans", they generally mean they liked how the U.S. used to act on the world stage, before evil Bushitler became Emperor. Doesn't have anything to do with what the country is actually like at all. The majority of the responders likely hasn't had any actual contact with Americans outside of vacations and perhaps business meetings, so their ideas about America are based on an utterly incomplete picture. But try telling your average European that he doesn't know nearly as much as he thinks he does...

In other words, I consider it to be mostly a mass delusion of non-Americans about the nature of America. It'll start to fade once Bush is reelected (hopefully in the 54-44, 47 states landslide I predicted after Kerry won the primaries), and people elsewhere are forced to acknowledge that Americans might just be a little more like that cowboy than they thought, and that their own notions of America are plain and simply wrong. That's when you'll start seeing the real level of anti-Americanism in the world.

We talk real funny down here
We drink too much and we laugh too loud
We're too dumb to make it in no global town
But we're keepin' the Muslims down...

(With appy-polly-logies to Randy Newman)

t-diddy, I don't believe my invitation said anything about your right to hold whatever opinion you wish. I'm perfectly well aware that American policy affects the world. Sorry, this is a matter of circumstance and is not personal, I assure you. But you are completely free (I presume) to vote for the candidates and lobby for the legislation in your own country to offset this influence. If you live in a free country, you are not (contrary to what you seem to believe) helpless. That said, if you live in a free country, then you must abide by what the majority rules.

But, by saying that it's OK for non-Americans to directly influence an American election, then you're saying that it's OK for China or Indonesia to meddle in Australian elections, or Germany or France to do the same to the U.K. If this is what you believe, then I repeat my invitation (as rude and crass as it is) to fuck off. You are no friend of mine nor to anyone who believes in the democratic spirit of a free nation. If I wanted to live in a country that wastes so much of its potential as does, say, France, or Germany, or (forgive me, my cousins) the U.K. and Canada, I would live there.

Attention all non-US Citizens who wish to influence the outcome of the Presidential Election in Ohio.

I think calling voters in Ohio and ask them to vote for Kerry is an EXCELLENT idea. Please be sure and remind said Ohio citizen that Kerry is vastly preferred to Bush in France. Americans LOVE France and would gladly alter their vote according to its wishes.

Also, keep in mind that the Ohio, despite its location, actually is in the same time zone as the country you are calling from. Therefore, if it's 5 PM where you live, it's 5 PM in Ohio! Don't worry about waking anyone up at 2 AM in the morning -- not gonna happen!

Finally, the best way to get an American's attention on the telephone is to pretend you are calling as part of a public opinion survey, and don't reveal your true intention until at least four minutes into the telephone call. Americans love it when telemarketers do that and the'll love it when you do too!

PW - as western and northern Europe continues is steady decline on the world stage, the inhabitants will find themselves drawn to anti-Americanism (and invariably anti-Australianism) because losers always hate winners.

Thank god the rest of the world hates us. Otherwise we would be flooded with immagrents ya know.

I don't mind hearing these polls about what our international neighbors think of W. Even the sort of speculation that these questions engender in the American voter is worth a moment's reflection.

Of course, I think that we should also ask ourselves who Al Qaeda wants to win. And North Korea. And Iran. And the Baathists. If we truly care what Belgium thinks about the Presidential election, these other voices surely deserve to be heard.

PW - as western and northern Europe continues is steady decline on the world stage, the inhabitants will find themselves drawn to anti-Americanism (and invariably anti-Australianism) because losers always hate winners.

Yup, it's going to get worse before it's going to get better...ya know, sometimes I wish the Russians had pushed through their demand in 1990 that a unified Germany be politically neutral. My country would probably still be run by phony peaceniks from the '68 generation and be sliding ever closer into socialism (I thought we had left that idea behind in 1989...oh well), but at least there wouldn't be this ridiculous notion that Germany is an actual trustworthy U.S. ally right now.

"....but at least there wouldn't be this ridiculous notion that Germany is an actual trustworthy U.S. ally right now."

And 'tis a pity, PW, because I trained with the Bundeswehr in the early 1980's, and I expect a brigade of German infantry would go a long way in Iraq or Afghanistan. Sigh.

The only poll on what the world thinks about the US I care about is the one where people vote with their feet. How many Canadians move to the US compared to US citizens moving to Canada (it's something like 10-1 despite Canada having a much smaller population base)? Ditto France, Germany, you name the country. I don't know about Australia, but I'll bet it's more in balance, although it's much easier to migrate to the US than vice versa.
t-diddy, like so many others you just insist on missing the point. The US doesn't "choose" to affect the rest of the world. The US "chooses" to tend to its own knitting and try to make our country what _we_ (just about everybody who lives here, citizen or not who is willing to play by our rules) want it to be. If you and your idiot ilk want to influence us, move here and play by our rules. I assume France is what it is because the benighted souls who live there want it to be like that. Well, let them stay there, stew in their own putrid juices, and STFU about how we do things.

Most US citizens would be perfectly happy to let the rest of the world do any goddamned thing is pleased, as long as they LEAVE US THE HELL ALONE!! We make pretty good neighbors (if Canada or Mexico don't think so, I encourage them to close the borders from their side and enforce them vigorously. We'll miss Canadians buying cheap health care from us and Mexicans providing cheap labor, but we'll manage without them somehow.) and very bad enemies. One reason we talk the way we do is as warning. Treat us nice, expect nice treatment back. Do otherwise, and take what you get. Also, we have long memories, as a group.

My wife is amazed how hard I try to avoid buying anything that may benefit France. I remember.

Thanks, Ozzies, Brits, Poles, Italians, and the rest of the Coalition. The rest of you bastards are welcome to go piss up a rope.

No representation without taxation!

I wonder what their answers would have been if there was a permanent residence visa on the line?
---Ah fuck, we know.

JorgXMckie summed it up nicely. "You're best friend or you're worst nightmare" Marine motto also says it all.

I think you non-Americans are missing the point with these polls and Euro-feelings about America in General. I've traveled around Europe extensively and you are a product of propaganda. Unfortunately, we have it here in the USA also but we are living in it and see issues first hand because they affect (or don't affect) our daily lives. Being a 4th generation American working and playing here everyday I can tell you that our economy is growing quite well, my stocks are up and I feel safer than I did. The Bush administration is doing a great job. Isn't it obvious to you when you see Kerry relying so heavily on brainwashed Euro-feelings and his "glass is half emty" sentiment?

Unforunately for you your press has left you in the state of ignorance without the ability to think on your own about American issues and there is nothing you can do but form your opinions based on propaganda. It isn't your fault but to take such a strong stand on issues you really only hear about 3rd party is quite ludicrous.

For the Americans and non-Americans who use Iraq as the big anti-Bush issue you need to remember that Kerry voted for the war and was for it until the wind shifted and he saw he needed Dean's anti-war voters! The only difference is that Bush consistantly supports our and our Allies troops and the fight against terrorism while Kerry supports whoever he can get votes from, He changes from day to day so anyday I could be wrong again.

The anti-American Euro-feelings haven't really changed at all as far as I can tell. On all my trips to Europe (before and after the Iraq invasion) I made many great friends while still reading and watching your anti-American propaganda. Basic society is very much the same in America as it is abroad,the ignorant tend to be prejudice and the average population leans toward feelings based on what they read in the newspaper and what they watch on tv. If not for our ignorant and our media propaganda Bush would be ahead 75:25.

I can assure you that we Americans are not sitting around worrying about what the french, Germans and other left wing Euro-media think of us. I could care less but can further assure you that America would be there should either of those countries and most others need our help. That is what sets us apart from our fair weathered allies. As for our real allies, I and most Americans appreciate their actions and expect it is a mutual alliance to acheive a goal rather than some personal Bush or right winged conspiracy like the liberal press wants you to believe.

Well said, Tej and WolfGod. Beautiful.

Well, if the "WOrld" wants Kerry as its President, they can have him. EU Presidency, UN Secretary-General, whatever.

I'm not a great fan of GWB, but I think an ongoing war of any type - even if action is outside my country, as it was with the USS Cole or Bali, or does not SEEM to have a direct effect, as in Chechnya - worsens security (and, yes, profits and lifestyle) for everyone. GWBush seems to have this idea, as opposed to Kerry's desire to return to the isolationism of the past.

Imagine Kerry as Secretary-General!

Well, he couldn't be any worse than Kofi Annan.

For the Americans and non-Americans who use Iraq as the big anti-Bush issue you need to remember that Kerry voted for the war and was for it until the wind shifted and he saw he needed Dean's anti-war voters! The only difference is that Bush consistantly supports our and our Allies troops and the fight against terrorism while Kerry supports whoever he can get votes from, He changes from day to day so anyday I could be wrong again.

Imagine Dean had imploded earlier than he did. No way would the rest of the field, e.g. Sharpton et al. have managed to pull Kerry as far into the anti-war camp as Dean did. In other words, if it wasn't for Dean, Kerry might be running as a credible war candidate right now, probably enabling him to mask his true leftist feelings better than the current campaign does...now there's a scary thought.

Sycophantic rabble? Somebody called me sycophantic rabble? Who dare say that? Some stupid right-winger fanatic moron I guess. Oh nooo! I was wrong. When I was just about to despise right wingers with all my might...oops! it's a free-thinking, justice-defending, all-embracing, fairness-fixed, eye-starred, well-wisher, future-world-inhabitant, mother nature's son leftist man! Wow!! Whatever happened with all of that leftist compassion, "I'll defend to death your right to express yourself as you like", diversity championing, freedom-of-thought, etc. etc, of the liberals? Incredible! Never seen such a dysphasic reality between intentions and actual deeds. Sir-in-the-left ("dude" I guess is your fav)YOU DON'T KNOW ME FOR A THING. Ok? So how do you dare to call me part of a rabble? Is that what the left has to offer for me? Insulting me because I think different from you? Sorry Sir, er, dude, I wouldn't want to be like you. I wouldn't want to insult and debase people that I don't even know, because they think differently from me. How disapponting indeed.

"A rabble, perhaps, but a rabble in arms"