I particularly liked these letters:

I used to visit the UK every year. I love the history and culture of your country. But after I heard about your campaign to influence our elections, I've decided that neither myself, nor my family will ever visit again. I'm offended by your campaign and because of it, I'm remembering more of the negative aspects I've seen in the UK than the positive ones. Though I still love the castles!
Detroit

I'm sure the UK is really torn up that they've lost 5 tourists. I'm sure it will shatter their economy

As a US citizen, I want to advise you that you and anyone that participates in subverting the US presidential election can be criminally charged and perhaps even charged as spies.
California

I was really happy to see the many positive responses, but I thought that there would be more of them, or at least neutral ones. It's really amazing how ignorant and closed minded some people can be. It's also incredible that so many people still believe that this is all about "American Politics". Sheesh.

And honestly, this makes me terribly frightened. Really, I was reading those letters and I started physically shaking. I can understand ignorance, but I just can't understand this. How can there be so much contempt and hatred against the rest of the world? Against your own neighbour? Against whovever doesn't think like you do? The whole thing reeks of so much racism and fascism I'm starting to see history repeat itself.

Please, please tell me I'm panicking, and that this is not representative of the common American.

Edited to add a disclaimer: This is not a coherent post, and it's not necessarily representative of what I think every day. This is what my brain looks like when I'm afraid for myself, and for my friends in the U.S.

quote:

---

Originally posted by tippygee:
For once, I want to hear someone pro-Bush not break down into name-calling to make their point.

---

AMEN TO THAT!

http://www.tomatonation.com/vote.shtml

"...the United States is full of awesome people. It's full of all kinds of other people -- stupid people, mean people, people who can't figure out a turn signal -- but it's also full of people who do Meals On Wheels, people who give up their Saturdays to coach Little League or pick up litter at the park, people who use their nonexistent free time to manage book drives, people who tutor ESL students for free, people who run 10Ks to raise money for cancer research, people who volunteer as Big Brothers and Sisters and at soup kitchens and to read to the blind, people who make sure everyone can have a pretty prom, people who found scholarships, people who save literature, people who carpool and write to their representatives and sell candy for uniforms and adopt pets and teeny babies."

And word on the insulting thing. Just from my own experience at work, coworkers of mine have noted that they only know of one Bush supporter here who reads up on all the facts and makes informed, respectful statements in regards to his view (Not saying this is not the case with other Bush supporters; perhaps some of the uninformed are just louder and stand out more in my mind).

On a related note, I read this letter to the editor in a local paper:
http://www.northeasttimes.com/index.html

(the one titled "Comunicratic Party," I think the link goes to the main page and you have to click on the "Read all the letters to the editor" link)

I'm not somebody who's all that informed when it comes to politics (or the history of), but someone correct me if I'm wrong...

However, I do think that taking the time to write and angry, cruel, racist and hurtful letter to someone from another country expressing their concerns about the world is unbelievably ignorant and rude. That doesn't mean that these people are necessarily like that in life, but this is the way that they are representing their country by responding in this way. I mean, some of those responses sound like they've been written by 15 year old boys. It's so, so sad.

I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but why are there so many people who live down there that don't understand that this election is not just their issue? This really, really scares me. We're all affected by this, which ever way it goes. We don't get a say at all, all we can do is hold our breath and hope that the result is the right one. We're SO close to the US, and yet we can't do anything. I get so frustrated about it I want to cry. I wish I had dual citizenship so I could vote, but I don't, so there is nothing I can do.

I'm sorry if I sound like a broken record, I'll try to stop ranting now.

I just wanted to respond to the letter writing campaign from overseas. I have only scimmed throught he post and I thought Kena's letter was wonderfully written and thought provoking. I can however understand why people would be upset in getting a letter. One reason is the fact that we are saturated with politics from day to day in the US - every other commercial is a political attack ad or an "I approved this message". At least half of the nightly news is politics, as it should be with such an important decision coming up, but when it has been non-stop for over a year I would think the last thing you want is something in the mail from someone in another country trying to suggest how you should vote. I live in MA and Kerry is our Senator. He is obviously favored to win the state and we are still bombarded with ads for him and Bush.

In my opinion I think I would also be a little offended if I got a piece of mail from a total stranger telling me how to vote. I can't really explain why in a post but I think that voting is very personal. There are issues that are important to me that may not be important to someone in another country, or in the US for that matter. I guess the best way to just say it is that I don't want someone from another country or my own to tell me how I should vote. This is why I could not see Farenheight 9/11 - I don't like the idea of someone pushing their feelings and opinions down my throat. It is one thing if it is on television or at the cinema - it's another if it shows up in your personal mailbox, and if Michael Moore ever showed on my doorstep - God help him.

OK - I hope this did not come off as bitchy - that was not my intent. I just wanted to put my thoughts out there. OK - back to the crafty thread for me!

Edited because there was too much babbling in this post - oh and lots of spelling errors.

quote:

---

Please, please tell me I'm panicking, and that this is not representative of the common American.

---

I completely agree that taking the time to write and angry, cruel, racist and hurtful letter to someone from another country expressing their concerns about the world is unbelievably ignorant and rude, and I agree that it unfairly paints the rest of us with the same brush.

I guess I just hate having to stand for BEING painted with that brush, since I and the people around me are NOT unbelievably ignorant and rude. (Nor are we Republicans, but thats neither here nor there in this discussion!) We are well read and caring and thoughtful, just like the well read, caring and thoughtful people across the pond.

It's frustrating to know that I am seen as ignorant and despicable, just for being American, and at the same time agree that Americans can be ignorant and despicable. But so can anybody, anywhere. People as a whole have a remarkable capacity for accomplishing good as well as for negative actions, regardless of nationality.

Yes, the rest of the world has a stake in what happens with respect to the war, and certainly what happens in Iraq will be affected by the outcome of the election, but there are a lot of other things at stake too, that don't affect the rest of the world nearly as much: tax policy, education, health care, same sex marriage, jobs and the state of the economy, tort reform, affirmative action, Supreme Court nominees, etc.

I certainly agree that many of the negative letter-writers were just being insulting/immature/ignorant, but it seemed like at least a few were trying to say that they didn't want to or shouldn't decide who to vote for based only on foreign policy. I'm hardly an undecided voter, but even if I were I don't think I'd be making up my mind based only on what's going on in Iraq -- there are a lot of other issues that matter to me that the president will influence.

Then again, I wouldn't vote for Bush if he were the only candidate and I think it's imperative to take action if there's something important to you at stake; I'm just playing devil's advocate.

edited to make absolutely clear that I think some of those negative letters were awful, and no wonder there's so much anti-U.S. feeling in the world, if that's what they think all Americans are like. I swear -- we're not all like that! Some of us even despise those people as much as you do!

quote:

---

Originally posted by jstrizzy:
Yes, the rest of the world has a stake in what happens with respect to the war, and certainly what happens in Iraq will be affected by the outcome of the election, but there are a lot of other things at stake too, that don't affect the rest of the world nearly as much

---

There are lots of other things at stake that do affect the rest of the world, in addition to foreign policy. Environment, limitations on scientific research and protectionist economic policies among other things.

And there are also things, like the non-respect of basic human rights, which do not necessarily affect us directly, but which I believe are "of everyone's business". (Can you tell I've been a member of Amnesty for most of my life?)

===

I'm sure the guardian letters are just from crackpots. In fact, I'm guessing they're all the crackpot-est ones they received, since that's totally what will sell more papers in britain. I read lots of idiotic doozies in the local papers too from 100% non-americans, having a fringe population of noodlebrains willing to write to the editor is certainly not a US monopoly.

I think it's dangerous and insulting to paint all bush supporters with the same brush. Over 50 million people voted for him in the last election. It only takes 0.01% of that many people to fill the media with arguments that make it look like they're all crazy, but I am betting that a huge majority of those voters were people who thought it over and just didn't come to the same conclusions as I would have. Certainly all the bush voters on this board I've encountered have been wonderful, reasonable people, not to mention incredibly brave and tolerent to talk about it to this hotbed o' liberal hippies.

It's depressing to see those letters, but let's take it with a grain of salt.

quote:

---

Originally posted by yam:
I think it's dangerous and insulting to paint all bush supporters with the same brush.

---

I agree; there are Bush supporters who are rational thoughtful people (like some digsters I know), and there are Kerry supporters that are ignorant freaks, and there are selfish isolationist nuts as well as concerned global citizens on all sides. Just as it's ridiculous for American voters to assume every Guardian reader who writes to them has bad teeth, it's not fair to assume every American is as hateful as those who wrote back.

I live in Colorado - which has gone from predominantly Republican to a swing state this election. Yesterday, alone, I received 9 messages on my answering machine about voting about half Republican and half Democrat. I've made up my mind on who I'm going to vote for in this election. I'm sick of the political saturation right now. I would take a letter from a stranger probably fairly bemused if I could tell it wasn't form letter. If it was a form letter, I would treat it just as every other piece of junk mail I've received these past couple of months.

While, I know that most people here will highly disagree with me, I find Kerry quite frightening - he has always seemed like a Teddy Rukspin version of a Ken doll, fairly robotic and canned. From what I've seen of his flip-flopping, he seems too easily programmed. I think someone mentioned earlier that they saw that as a good thing - that he is flexible, and I see how one can interpret it that way. I don't, I see it as pandering or just saying what people want to hear because you don't have your own ideas. Though in my mind that is part of the political game.

There are many things that I don't like about Bush and in fact agree with Kerry on, but when I make a prioritized list, my highest priorities match those of the Bush administration.

My state is also considering an amendment on the Electoral College - basically doing a straight proportion of votes to electoral votes (I believe this differs from the two states that do this in that a portion of their electoral votes go to the winner and the rest are proportioned.) starting THIS election. (The secretary of state has already said Colorado won't be able to certify the vote for a couple weeks after the election. Anyone else already resigned to the fact that we may not know the outcome of the election for a while?) There are varying arguments for and against this, but I really hope it gets defeated, as I see the Electoral College making sure that more than just Denver is heard.

Another point I wanted to respond to is that the election affects the rest of the world. IT DOES. However, my vote is my own. It is MY say in how MY government runs. I have a duty to myself and my country to vote for how *I* believe my interests and my country's interests are best represented. In general I won't agree with everyone. Yes, this affects you if you don't live here, but your country's best interests may not lie perfectly in line with mine. We shouldn't step on you, but we have to protect our own. I don't think that trying to influence another country's vote is the way to go though. One should influence their own government to react to the rest of the world in a way that protects/benefits them. Canada should protect/lookout for Canada. (I know that money makes those few statements a bit idealistic, but that is my view at any rate.) I'm not advocating that the US completely ignore the rest of the world because part of looking out for ourselves is getting along with other countries...we are extremely dependent on trade. We must take into consideration what other countries feel and tolerate, but we shouldn't compromise our beliefs to the point that we are being ultra beneficial to the rest of the world while hurting ourselves in the process. I think we've done so in the past and shouldn't go there again.

The president is only one man/branch of the government and we have a system of checks and balances in place. Everyone in the house is up for election every two years. This is one of the largest checks/balances on the president. Unless Congress is overwhelming matched in political orientation to the president, I don't believe the president is ultra powerful. His budgets aren’t easily passed, his justice nominees aren't easily approved and so forth. I generally keep that in mind when voting.

I really didn't intend to say that much and I hope that I didn't offend anyone (I know I can be blunt sometimes), but I just feeling a bit beat up by a bit of the anti-Republicanism on this thread. I hope it makes sense; I'm kind of tired right now.

* Going to hide under a rock now. *

Edited because I can't type tonight.

[This message has been edited by briezee (edited 10-19-2004).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jazzberry:
For the record, my personal concerns don't end with Iraq. The United States are supposed to set precendents for the world, and Bush's views on guns, gay marriage, and capital punishment concern me. I don't know if relations between Canada and the U.S. would improve with either candidate, to be honest.

---

I'm probably tempting fate by posting twice on a thread I've been avoiding like the plague.

I don't think it is the US's job to set a precedent for the rest of the world. I know we have the power to do due to deep media influence and strong economic influence in the majority of the world. For the record, the only one of the above I disagree with on Bush is the issue of gay marriage (probably because of my involvement with the Queer community). Two of the issues have ties (very tenous, but still spouted) to religion and while(or because) I am an atheist, I'm hesitant to be a world leader on issues that in anyway can be tied to religion. The rest of the world needs to consider what they can tolerate on issues like these. And if they are different that those expressed by the US, then so be it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by yam:
I'm sure the guardian letters are just from crackpots. In fact, I'm guessing they're all the crackpot-est ones they received, since that's totally what will sell more papers in britain. I read lots of idiotic doozies in the local papers too from 100% non-americans, having a fringe population of noodlebrains willing to write to the editor is certainly not a US monopoly.

I think it's dangerous and insulting to paint all bush supporters with the same brush. Over 50 million people voted for him in the last election. It only takes 0.01% of that many people to fill the media with arguments that make it look like they're all crazy, but I am betting that a huge majority of those voters were people who thought it over and just didn't come to the same conclusions as I would have. Certainly all the bush voters on this board I've encountered have been wonderful, reasonable people, not to mention incredibly brave and tolerent to talk about it to this hotbed o' liberal hippies.

---

I agree with that. I may not be able to put myself inside a Bush supporter's mind and I may disagree with them with every fiber in my being, but they're not all nuts or meanies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jazzberry:
I don't think anyone said anywhere that ALL Americans or ALL Bush supporters were bad people.

---

Well, there was that one comment someone (yes, I know it wasn't you) made about people that are pro-Bush not breaking down into name calling... It's a touchy and tense subject, the stakes are high, and we all have strong feelings. So far the discussion has gone pretty well, but I think yam makes a good point. Crackpots should be taken for what they are, crackpots.

/end moderator-schomderator blah-blah stuff

quote:

---

Originally posted by briezee:
I don't think it is the US's job to set a precedent for the rest of the world.[/i]

---

I actually agree with you there. While I recognize that the U.S. has that ability, I'm not sure it's our responsibility any more more than it's our responsibility to be the world's police force. That doesn't mean we need to be isolatinists. But what our government does/does not do will ultimately reflect the values most common in our current culture. If that means that there are a lot of people still grappling with the morality of gay marriages, then well, I personally wish that weren't so... but it is a reflection of our cultural mores (for now at least), not the rest of the world's.

I kind of agree with those that have brought up the idea that the decision of who the U.S. president will be is an American decison. I would probably also dismiss any letters I got if they had any political rhetoric in them or if they attempted to directly influece my vote towards a particular candidate. If they were merely trying to inform me of what some issues are outside my own country and did so in a way that did not denounce either candidate I would be more ready to consider their comments... which is probably a very tricky thing to so. I don't think the letter-writing campaign is inherently good or bad, but if anyone were to participate in it I would encourage them to approach with a cool-head and to get as much feedback on it as possible before actually sending it. But that's just me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by briezee:
I find Kerry quite frightening - he has always seemed like a Teddy Rukspin version of a Ken doll, fairly robotic and canned. From what I've seen of his flip-flopping, he seems too easily programmed. I think someone mentioned earlier that they saw that as a good thing - that he is flexible, and I see how one can interpret it that way. I don't, I see it as pandering or just saying what people want to hear because you don't have your own ideas. Though in my mind that is part of the political game.[/i]

---

With all respect for you opinion, I actually see Bush in the way you described Kerry. I remember personally many instances when he or one of his spokespeople have contradicted themselves, have changed their story, or have claimed that they didn't say something I remember them saying (and have looked up transcripts of them saying). I think Bush panders, and I think his 3 extremely different performances in the debates are a great example of this... talk about inconsistency. I actually also don't buy his conservative Christian values entirely, as I believe he recognizes that they appeal to a broad group of people who will give their unyielding loyalty to a candidate who is socially conservative (pro-life, against gay marriage, repeatedly refers to prayer and makes references to God, etc.).

Funny how people can look at the very same things and view them so oppositely, ain't it?

http://www.thetalentshow.org/images/bush_rules_1.jpg

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lars:
TheTalentShow.org has posted the page of NOTES that George W. Bush was taking during the debates vs John Kerry.

http://www.thetalentshow.org/images/bush_rules_1.jpg

~Lars

---

*snort* these are cracking me up. What do you think they were REALLY writing down?

quote:

---

Originally posted by briezee:
[B]Another point I wanted to respond to is that the election affects the rest of the world. IT DOES. However, my vote is my own. It is MY say in how MY government runs. I have a duty to myself and my country to vote for how *I* believe my interests and my country's interests are best represented. In general I won't agree with everyone. Yes, this affects you if you don't live here, but your country's best interests may not lie perfectly in line with mine. We shouldn't step on you, but we have to protect our own. I don't think that trying to influence another country's vote is the way to go though. One should influence their own government to react to the rest of the world in a way that protects/benefits them. Canada should protect/lookout for Canada. (I know that money makes those few statements a bit idealistic, but that is my view at any rate.) I'm not advocating that the US completely ignore the rest of the world because part of looking out for ourselves is getting along with other countries...we are extremely dependent on trade. We must take into consideration what other countries feel and tolerate, but we shouldn't compromise our beliefs to the point that we are being ultra beneficial to the rest of the world while hurting ourselves in the process. I think we've done so in the past and shouldn't go there again.
B]

---

And I guess that's where my ultra-liberal steps in, because I really do believe it is the US's responsibility, as the world's sole superpower, the country with the most nuclear weapons, monetary resources, environmental consumption, so and so on, to be mindful of the rest of the world. I can agree with and respect the decision to make it be one's vote for one's own country, and I can respect if someone thinks that Bush is the better choice for this reason. But my personal position is that the US is better, and better off, when it is fully linked with and honestly supportive of the rest of the world. Thereby, I also cast my vote for my country accordingly.

I suppose, too, the reason why I'm very intrigued with and supportive of the Guardian's efforts are that, regardless of their position, most Americans won't even bother to find out about any policy, domestic or foreign, unless it's shoved in their face. When I used my passport instead of a Social Security card as my employment eligibility document, my boss didn't realize it established citizenship because so few people have passports that *no one* had ever brought him one before. Most people in the US, regardless of their political affiliation, will not even think about what the rest of the world is like unless something smacks them in the face (or arrives in their mailbox). Foreign policy certainly isn't everything, but it is definitely something, and it definitely is about more than just Iraq. We're not hearing how the UK feels about US foreign policy, and certainly not about Canada. The sole foreign policy issue in this election is being framed as "Are we right or wrong to be in Iraq?" So if someone from Canada wants to inform some Ohioans, I say go for it. You may not be listened to, but someone who otherwise might not have even given it a thought will at least see something other than the war.

Ok! I'm game! Any takers? Dewgirl? Briezee? I'm all yours for one little hanging chad.

quote:

---

Originally posted by briezee:
Another point I wanted to respond to is that the election affects the rest of the world. IT DOES. However, my vote is my own. It is MY say in how MY government runs. I have a duty to myself and my country to vote for how *I* believe my interests and my country's interests are best represented. In general I won't agree with everyone. Yes, this affects you if you don't live here, but your country's best interests may not lie perfectly in line with mine. We shouldn't step on you, but we have to protect our own. I don't think that trying to influence another country's vote is the way to go though. One should influence their own government to react to the rest of the world in a way that protects/benefits them. Canada should protect/lookout for Canada. (I know that money makes those few statements a bit idealistic, but that is my view at any rate.) I'm not advocating that the US completely ignore the rest of the world because part of looking out for ourselves is getting along with other countries...we are extremely dependent on trade. We must take into consideration what other countries feel and tolerate, but we shouldn't compromise our beliefs to the point that we are being ultra beneficial to the rest of the world while hurting ourselves in the process. I think we've done so in the past and shouldn't go there again.

---

But the irony is - if we now say "You can't decide our politics - you don't live here." and then turn around and crow about how we're protecting the world from terrorism - how does that jive? (side note: did I just say jive??) How can we say we have a right and a duty and an obligation to protect the world from Terrorists- but then turn around and tell the world to butt out?

quote:

---

Originally posted by BionicGirl:
geogirl, could you elaborate on some of the points you made and how you feel they are retribution towards Cananda? I'm afraid I just am not informed enough on some of those to follow your conclusion.
[This message has been edited by BionicGirl (edited 10-18-2004).]

---

Sorry, I just saw this now, but Kena answered for me very well.

Many Canadians feel that the economic restrictions are mainly for retaliation. There is no direct proof.

The BSE incident (May 2003) was found because of monitoring, no contaminated meat made it to markets, it was caught. That is the purpose of the monitoring. The US & other countries closed the borders to canadian beef immediately (understandibly) (sp?). However, over one year after the investigations (slaughter of some thousands of cattle) concluded that there was no threat and no one had gotten ill, the borders remain closed. I believe the losses to canadian farmers is in the billions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merimoo:
Y'know, I feel that just by having this discussion, we're taking it into account. Isn't that the point of having a rational discussion/conversation? To learn what you can about the other side's view? It may not affect your ideology, but at least you'll have heard both sides of the story.

---

That's very true, merimoo. I agree, as far as this thread goes - I don't have any other place to express my opinion on American politics where Americans may listen and take what I have to say into consideration (or not).

Unfortunately, not everyone has a Digs where they can hear a variety of viewpoints from different types of people.

edited because bold within bold doesn't work.

quote:

---

Originally posted by meggo:

But the irony is - if we now say "You can't decide our politics - you don't live here." and then turn around and crow about how we're protecting the world from terrorism - how does that jive? (side note: did I just say jive??) How can we say we have a right and a duty and an obligation to protect the world from Terrorists- but then turn around and tell the world to butt out?

---

I don't believe we have an obligation to protect the world from terrorists, rather we have an obligation to protect Ourselves from terrorists. My personal view is that the US is a bit overinvolved in things they probably shouldn't be. I do have a hard time figuring out exactly what are democrat and republican views as I have extreme hodge podge of views. A major thing that has annoyed me about the US is that we seem to have adapted a "Let's fix the (entire) world" mantra. To me this seems like a waste of resources in some cases and also an abuse of power - fixing the world in some cases is shoving our values and cultures down everyone else's throats and they might not like that.

I've been fairly lucky in my life to experience a wide range of views and exposure to non-Americans due to a military upbringing and lots of moving, my connections in the DoD world, as well as the friends I've made in college. I may not agree with their views all the time, but at least I have the chance to hear them. I do feel sorry for the people who don't have a Digs or like community where they get that opportunity.

quote:

---

Originally posted by briezee:
I don't believe we have an obligation to protect the world from terrorists, rather we have an obligation to protect Ourselves from terrorists. My personal view is that the US is a bit overinvolved in things they probably shouldn't be. ]

---

This I agree with Briezee, and you may even have an obligation to protect yourselves from terrorists but surely the way Bush has gone about it i.e. go and bomb the eff out of Afghanistan and when that doesn’t bring any joy, bomb the eff out of Iraq without any real justification, is that the best way to protecting yourselves from terrorism? Does that do anything for understanding the cause of terrorism and developing a more effective solution? Because from my point of view all it does is make the divide between America (and its allies, of which Australia, my country, is one) and the “terrorists” even greater aka “my bomb’s bigger than yours”.

What about America’s (and its allies) obligation to respect international law, it certainly has expected other countries to abide by international law in the past? America is a super power so in my opinion it does have a social obligation to uphold international law – if it doesn’t like those laws then lobby to change them, don’t disregard them “just because we can”.

By returning Bush and his government you are effectively saying what he did, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kyoto protocol etc etc is okay, that lying about weapons of mass destruction is okay, infact he could even see that he has a mandate to lie about other important things in the future because the American people said that was okay, they want that kind of a president.

I understand the issues you or others may have with Kerry, during our recent elections we had an opposition leader standing with whom a lot of people weren’t confident but really, I say what are our/your options – take your chances with the unknown, which at most is going to be four years and if he eff’s up kick him out, and at the same time tell your existing president (and in my case Prime-Minister) that what he did was wrong and will not be tolerated or return the same leaders and tell them lying, blatantly ignoring international law, trivialising human rights is okay presumably because the economy is doing a bit better?

Briezee you mentioned something earlier about your priorities and I guess that’s what it comes down to. I’m biased I know but I just can’t understand what could be a higher priority than international law and human rights.

quote:

---

Originally posted by crowjoy:
From Salon, "An even more hands-on effort is FTheVote.com, a Web site that encourages "sexy liberals" to seduce and have sex with conservatives in exchange for their partner's promise to vote against Bush."

Ok! I'm game! Any takers? Dewgirl? Briezee? I'm all yours for one little hanging chad.

---

heh heh heh - Florida the Swinger State