President Blair

President Blair

: Joi Ito runs some blunt American reaction to The Guardian’s attempt to get Brits to influence the American election.

: FYI, I’ll be on BBC Radio Five Live tonight (between 7:45 and 8:30 p.m. New York time) to talk about the election and writing in Tony Blair.

  • http://bob.pence.com Bob Pence

    Even Schwarzenegger-friendly amendments would require a long citizenship period, usually 20 years. Should Blair depart Great Britain within the next fortnight and be granted citizenship immediately, he would just qualify for the 2024 elections at the age of 71, two years older than Reagan was in 1980.
    He won’t be running in ’08. Sorry.

  • http://blogs.rny.com/sbw/ sbw

    The press chooses either to be illuminating or incendiary. The Guardian selected incendiary when it decided to release the hounds. We don’t write editorials unless we can be illuminating.

  • pele

    Here’s a link to some more…
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1329858,00.html
    Funnily enough, I do have bad teeth!

  • Tom (American Voter)

    Regarding the Guardian’s attempt to influence the US vote for president, all I can say is Bush must be doubly blessed have such insane opponents. If there was ever a scheme more guaranteed to backfire I have yet to hear of it.

  • pele

    Jeff, please mention “Baghdad Broadcasting Corporation”. Should be good for a laugh.

  • Glyn

    The primary objective of a newspaper is to come up with interesting stories and fill pages rather than overthrow foreign governments – and the Guardian achieved that, not only with its initial article but with the double-page spread where they posted American responses (both courteous and vituperative, see Dear Limey Assholes below):
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1329858,00.html
    But 2 points: of course the Guardian is pro-Kerry but who isn’t? At present, most British are pro-American and support the War (just) but are very anti-Bush. And that includes people on the right as well (i.e. the majority of Conservative party supporters). It’s difficult to over-estimate the damage that Bush has done to America’s image.
    And, in a week, when the Bush administration has asked Blair to supply 500 or 600 more British troops (the Scottish Black Watch regiment) and deploy them to more dangerous areas to take over from the US, then it’s reasonable for Brits to have an opinion about your election – some of our soldiers will inevitably be killed as a result of your President’s decisions (whether justified or not isn’t the point).
    The increase in British troops is manageable since we only have about 10-12 thousand there (about the same as in Northern Ireland). But putting them directly under gung-ho American leadership and aggressive rules of engagement is highly controversial right across the political spectrum. Especially as people believe it is being done, right now, for electoral gain in the US. British people don’t want their sons to die to help get Bush re-elected.

  • Glyn

    The primary objective of a newspaper is to come up with interesting stories and fill pages rather than overthrow foreign governments – and the Guardian achieved that, not only with its initial article but with the double-page spread where they posted American responses (both courteous and vituperative, see Dear Limey Assholes below):
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1329858,00.html
    But 2 points: of course the Guardian is pro-Kerry but who isn’t? At present, most British are pro-American and support the War (just) but are very anti-Bush. And that includes people on the right as well (i.e. the majority of Conservative party supporters). It’s difficult to over-estimate the damage that Bush has done to America’s image.
    And, in a week, when the Bush administration has asked Blair to supply 500 or 600 more British troops (the Scottish Black Watch regiment) and deploy them to more dangerous areas to take over from the US, then it’s reasonable for Brits to have an opinion about your election – some of our soldiers will inevitably be killed as a result of your President’s decisions (whether justified or not isn’t the point).
    The increase in British troops is manageable since we only have about 10-12 thousand there (about the same as in Northern Ireland). But putting them directly under gung-ho American leadership and aggressive rules of engagement is highly controversial right across the political spectrum. Especially as people believe it is being done, right now, for electoral gain in the US. British people don’t want their sons to die to help get Bush re-elected.

  • Glyn

    Um, sorry for the double spam. I’ll get my coat.