I keep looking at CNN and the BBC and other sites for the final electoral vote count, including New Mexico and Iowa. They all list what they had as of the moment that it was clear that Bush had won with 274 votes. Both Iowa and New Mexico show Bush ahead in those states, but with no “call” one way or the other; they’re both listed as undecided. Talk about a short attention span — Bush makes it over the top and then no one seems to care how two states voted.
And another one: In the United Kingdom one channel transmitted the whole of Kerry’s farewell speech, yet Bush’s speech was not shown at all. They cut transmission off during Cheeney’s introduction. I frantically tried to find any other way to see even part of Bush’s speech, to no avail.
On the European continent it’s even worse, of course. It’s grim, very grim.
I know! How are we supposed to know who won the intern office pool without knowing how New Mexico and Iowa voted?
Dear JP,
Well, there are worse things than cutting off a presidential speech. The Europeans will have to get used to the fact that Americans don’t always agree with them, just as Americans have to get used to the idea that France and Germany are independent countries and are not obligated to support U.S. foreign or military policy when they see things differently (or, of course, when Jacques Chirac gets his hands greased a bit).
A good corrective for Europeans puzzled by American politics would be to read John Micklethwait’s and Adrian Wooldridge’s *The Right Natilon: Conservative Power in America*. It’s a remarkably good explanation of American politics, by two very talented *Economist* writers. (In fact, it reads a bit like a very long *Economist* article.)
And for Carlos: Now that’s a good case of getting your priorities right!
Ã?Â?Ã?¢Ã?¢?Ã?¬Ã?Â?Ã?¦and, there is a book seminar at The Heritage Foundation next week about “The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America”.
As a Swede, I found the book very helpful to understand some things within American conservatism and I still use it as a reference book.
They have to wait 10 days or so, until all the provisional ballots are counted. Right? Call me paranoid — but I’ve been holding in my sigh of relief until there’s no chance Kerry will get elected.
There are very many freedom-loving Europeans (especially Brits) who would like Europe (and the UK) to get much closer to the US. Again,their viewpoints are unlikely to be shown by our biased anti-American and anti-Bush media.
The European media was already anti-Bush while he was campaigning to win a first term (and quite a few were probably already opposed to him before he even became a candidate). This primitive anti-Americanism has very little to do with the war, and even less with the person of W. This is just the continuing battle between an ideology of personal freedom and an ideology of state enslavement.
I do by no stretch of the imagination support Bush 100 %. I dislike the bigotry of many of his most ardent supporters. I disliked his steel tariffs. Yet the absolutely perfect politician still remains to be born (and probably never will). On balance, there can be no doubt as to who most represented freedom in this election. I and many of my British friends are delighted with the result.
The Iowa vote is still close enough that absentee/provisional ballots can make a difference. New Mexico seems to have a larger proportional lead for Bush, but it also has far more absentee ballots (per capita) than most states have. In short, there’s nothing to “call” yet (although neither state’s outcome can change the election’s outcome).
Hi Tom. Love the site. Here’s a prime example of “lying with statistics,” which was a topic of Cato University in Quebec:
http://andrewcoyne.com/archives/004035.php