Stan Shebs wrote:
You are talking, but are you listening? If the choice
of US president
matters so much to Europe, then why aren't the Europeans supporting
Kerry in a way that will get him some more votes? Guardian readers
lecturing Iowans in letters was a really dumb idea, I can't believe
that in all the millions of Europe there isn't anyone with a better
idea for two-way dialogue.
Why was the Guardian's gambit a "really dumb idea"? And if you think
it's easy to come up with a better approach, what's your proposal?
There's nothing terribly intrusive about simply sending letters to
people in the United States, and the Guardian set things up so that
no one in Ohio would receive more than a single letter from their
readers. In any given week, I receive dozens of unsolicited letters
from companies trying to sell me products, organizations asking for
my money, and campaigns trying to sell me their candidates. Getting
one letter from someone in the UK would hardly be a burden and would
actually be a refreshing improvement over the mail I usually get.
The objection can't possibly be that we object to outside meddling,
given the numerous ways that the United States routinely meddles in
other countries' elections. So what's the problem?
What I found most shocking about the Guardian campaign was the
vitriolic response from Bush supporters. One person, for example,
called the British "stupid, yellow-toothed pansies ... I don't give a
rat's ass if our election is going to have an effect on your
worthless little life." Other responses were full of similar
profanity and insults. The level of overt hatred toward the British
is all the more striking since England is in fact the best ally that
the Bush administration has in its war in Iraq. If nothing else,
these responses may help educate a few Brits firsthand about the ugly
depths to which American politics has fallen, which in turn might put
some additional pressure on the Labour Party to change course.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1329858,00.html