The link may require a subscription, but here's a nice article from The Economist's Charlemagne column on "old europe's" love for it's favorite son. http://economist.com/World/europe/d...=336dced-0b9b60e3-fb1f-4738-83fa-b5562bdd8b2f -- Charlemagne Europe's candidate for president Mar 4th 2004 From The Economist print edition Why Europeans are rooting for John Kerry AS JOHN KERRY girds himself for the presidential fight, he is being cheered on from over the water. A picture of the junior senator from Massachusetts recently adorned the cover of Le Nouvel Observateur, a left-wing French magazine, under the title “The man who can beat Bush”. Since, according to a recent poll, only 6% of Europeans strongly approve of George Bush's handling of foreign policy, that is recommendation enough. But Mr Kerry also has family ties that make him so beguiling to Europeans. His grandfather, it transpires, came from a tiny Czech village. His first cousin, Brice Lalonde, served as environment minister in a French Socialist government in 1988-92. Mr Lalonde told the French press that he recently saw his cousin, and talked fondly of shared childhood holidays in Brittany. He commented in Libération that “our mothers were sisters. But I don't want to damage him, because you know that at the moment it is better not to appear too French in the United States.” Quite so. At a recent Washington breakfast, Tom DeLay, the Republican majority leader in the House of Representatives, greeted guests with the words: “Good morning, or bonjour as John Kerry would say.” The senator is indeed reportedly fluent in French, and is even said to have chatted up Teresa Heinz, now his wife, in the language. He can also trot out phrases in other European languages. The correspondent for Stern, a German magazine, noted approvingly that Mr Kerry had not only expressed deep concern to him about the state of American-European relations, but done it in German, saying: “I am really concerned. Seien Sie sicher.” The flattering effect that this has on Europeans should not be underestimated. It grates deeply that Mr Bush appears neither to know nor to care much about the old continent. By contrast Mr Kerry, who went to a Swiss boarding-school while his father was a diplomat in Berlin, is seen as a throwback to a more sophisticated, Europhile era in which the American elite naturally looked across the Atlantic. As Stern rhapsodised to its readers, “Bush quotes the Bible, Kerry Pablo Neruda. Bush likes local novels, Kerry loves Shakespeare. While Bush doesn't read the newspaper and is proud of it, Kerry reads Le Monde.” As well as wrapping up the French, German and Swiss votes, Mr Kerry would also run strongly in Portugal, courtesy of his wife, who was born in the Portuguese colony of Mozambique. Naturally there is also a political element to the Europeans' Kerryphilia. The standard phrase among those who rail against American foreign policy these days is “I'm not anti-American, I'm anti-Bush.” This division between the American people and their elected leader is a little too convenient. But it is true that Republican presidents tend to emphasise the aspects of American life that are most alien to the European elite: religion, guns, militarism, and hostility to the welfare state and the green lobby. By contrast, Mr Kerry is sound on two hot-button issues dear to Europeans: the Kyoto treaty on climate change, and the death penalty. And while Mr Kerry may have voted for war with Iraq, most Europeans assume that he would have been less gung-ho about rushing ahead without a broader international coalition. All this means, in the words of Thomas Klau, a columnist for FT Deutschland, that Mr Kerry is “the dream candidate for the old world”. European journalists may have no problem giving voice to their longing for an end to the Bush presidency. But European political leaders must be more cautious. Over the past couple of months Germany and France have made a concerted effort to rebuild relations with the Americans. Gerhard Schröder, the German chancellor, has just completed a trip to Washington that was designed to demonstrate that his long quarrel with Mr Bush was over. This week French and American troops launched a joint operation to stabilise Haiti, an event hailed in Paris as marking a reconciliation between the two countries. As for Mr Bush, although his campaign strategists may have fun with Mr Kerry's French connections, he will want to be careful about exposing himself to Mr Kerry's charge that he has alienated the European allies. All sides are likely to use the 60th anniversary commemorations of the D-Day landings on June 6th as a photo-opportunity to demonstrate that ties between the United States and Europe are back on a sure footing. The enduring Atlantic divide Besides, whoever is in the White House, tensions between European and American approaches to the world seem sure to persist. The heyday of Atlanticism came to a close with the end of the cold war. The overriding concern for America now is the stabilisation of the “Greater Middle East”. And for all the hopeful talk, on both sides of the Atlantic, that this might be a new project on which to rebuild American-European relations, the reality is that attitudes and priorities will remain different. Thus, polls suggest that Americans are far more sympathetic to Israel than Europeans and also more open to the use of military force. Some Europeans complain that American policymakers, preoccupied by the Middle East, take a cavalier approach to some extremely sensitive issues, such as Turkish membership of the European Union. One German analyst groans that “as far as the Americans are concerned, the discussion over whether Turkey should join the EU is already over. Now they want us to accept Israel, Palestine and Georgia.” Were John Kerry to win the White House in November, such differences would remain. Indeed in some areas, such as trade, the quarrels between the two sides could get worse: Mr Bush has been bad enough, but Mr Kerry is deploying some alarmingly protectionist language in his campaign. The United States would remain preoccupied by the war on terror, pro-Israeli and willing to use its military strength unilaterally. Mr Kerry might explain American views more tactfully than Mr Bush. He might even do it in French. But transatlantic tensions would endure.
They just might be rooting for Kerry because they are tired of dealing with the cowboy dumbass marionette they have had to deal with since the 2000 Selection!
well, we already know who Kim Jong Il prefers, and it seems safe to assume Aristide would rather have kerry as president, as would saddam. now it looks like arafat would too, although Mushareff is probably a Bush fan. Hey, here's an idea for a bumper sticker - "4 out of 5 Thuggish Despots prefer Kerry!"
The Arafat story has already been thoroughly discredited... seems an overeager reporter took things a little out of context. (I'm shocked it happened at the NYPost and that the error reflects badly on a Dem.) Here's the NY Post story you cite... "Democratic presidential nominee-to-be John Kerry called Yasser Arafat a "statesman" and a "role model" in a 1997 book that Kerry cites as proof of his own foresight about foreign policy. Kerry expressed the opposite view eight days ago, when he told Jewish leaders in New York that he shares President Bush's belief that Arafat must be isolated because he's not a "partner for peace" - much less a statesman. " and here's what Kerry's book actually says... pps. 113-114: "In his contribution to a symposium-like volume published in 1986 under the title Terrorism: How the West Can Win, the noted historian Paul Johnson writes, 'What has the PLO, the quintessential terrorist movement of modern times, achieved? After the PLO and the other terrorist movements it succored racked up an appalling total of lives extinguished and property destroyed, how far have they progressed toward achieving their stated political ends? Not at all; in fact they have regressed. The Palestinian state is further away than ever.' "Only eleven years have passed since those words appeared in print. If nothing else, this indicates the velocity of change in the late twentieth century. Terrorist organizations with specific political agendas may be encouraged and emboldened by Yasser Arafat's transformation from outlaw to statesman, while those whose only object is to disrupt society require no such 'role models.' In fact, what most encourages and emboldens terrorists now are the unprecedented opportunities inherent in the new world of porous borders, instant communications, and access to weapons of mass destruction. Like everything else, global terrorism is mutating at a very rapid rate. Failure to prepare for the new strains verges on the suicidal … "With the end of the superpower struggle, increased attention has fallen on radical Islam. It was twenty-five years ago that the world was treated to the murder of Israeli Olympic athletes in Munich by a group of hooded Palestinian terrorists. Since then, we have witnessed dozens of other horrific incidents ... Under U.S. leadership, nations have arrayed themselves to discourage state sponsored terrorism. We have made such sponsorship a very risky business, as Libya, Iran, and Iraq and their peoples have learned through bitter experience. But as French interior minister Bernard Debre observed in the summer of 1996, today's terrorist networks are far harder to target, owing to their autonomy, lack of clear strategy, and rapid rate of reproduction. Debre concluded that what was necessary to stop them was for states to focus on monitoring banks, computer networks, and weapons trafficking as essential components of detecting terrorist networks as they emerge."
So what? He said that he had become a statesman in 1997; time to break out good old dictionary.com, basso's worst enemy: states·man ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sttsmn) n. 1.A man who is a leader in national or international affairs. 2.jA male political leader regarded as a disinterested promoter of the public good. 3.A man who is a respected leader in a given field: “a mature statesman of American letters” (Toby Thompson). Was arafat not the leader of the Palestinians in 1997? If he was not, then who was? It seems like Mr. Rabin concurred in this judgment: As did Bush's Special Envoy to the Middle Easte, (Ret.) Gen. Anthony Zinni in 2002: What precisely is your issue, aside from a really convoluted smear? The lengths to which you guys have gone to split the tiniest of hairs to discredit Kerry this early are really remarkable, and makes me feel really good about his candidacy. Honestly, is this the best you can do? I used to have faith in the GOP to dig up skeletons, or at least fabricate them if necessary; this is just kind of sad.
Excuse me basso, but the only way you can not see that Kerry's reference to "statesman" is highly skeptical is if you don't want to. What he's saying is that people like Arafat, who can change their image (for some people) from terrorist to "statesman," that is, eventually being taken seriously as part of the political process, will only encourage those who resort to terrorism. The role model quote is saying that those who are intent on causing as much disruption as possible without worrying about how it affects their political goals don't give a damn about people like Arafat anyway.
Wait, so let me see if I understand what's transpired here basso will not be voting for Kerry. check. SamFisher, RMTex, and rimrocker will not be voting for Bush. check. Got it! Oh, and heads of state prefer to deal with an unknown quantity rather than someone who tells them to kiss his oil-smelling ass. No matter who you're voting for, you have to admit that makes sense and is not particularly surprising.
I think Basso is doing his best to play Rox BBS Karl Rove/Lee Atwater, I think he believes that if he encourages us the imagine John Kerry next to Jacque Chirac and Saddam Hussein and Arafat ((a la Max Cleland) he's planting the seed and doing his duty as a good republican.
By the way, in addition to Europe's favorite candidate, Kerry is increasingly looking like America's as well... USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll: Bush 44% Kerry: 52%
Arafat was the Palestinian leader in 1997, but I seriously doubt that Yitzhak Rabin was the leader of Israel in 1997.
That wasn't an intentional implication, but that was the first picture I could find. Anyway, for the sake of good order, here's Peres along with the Palestinian "stateman" and here's Barak: that covers the bases, no? EDIT: one more base to cover THE FOLLOWING IS A SAMFISHER EXCLUSIVE My sources indicate that the Bush administration has actually had official contacts with Arafat via the STATE DEPARTMENT!!!! Including the SECRETARY OF STATE!!!! In so doing, it added fuel to the fire by lending more credence to this alleged "statesman" Bush administration..EMBRACING TERROR!!! Sources also indicate that after the meeting, the happy twosome of statesman was whisked away for a private ceremony in San Francisco City Hall...
OK.....I just wanted to clarify that because the 1997 thing <i>jumped off the page</i> when I read it and the mention of Rabin was nearby.
LMAO! Finally this thread has taken an appropriate turn and increased its value by orders of magnitude. Look at Netanyahu... Looks like he suspected something that threatened the very fabric of marriage was brewing between Arafat and Powell!
Strange that a presidential candidate's popularity around the world is being used against him. That says a lot about America, but I'm scared to consider what.
You're right b-bob, these all deserve captions: Shimon was nice, but we just didn't have physical chemistry, there was no fo-schizzle, you know? At that point I started to get worried! I suspected that Bibi might know I have been sneaking around with Shimon! He used to be in the Mossad you know. Ehud was very cute! I am a sucker for a man in uniform! He was such a gentleman! He even held the door for me when we went to Bill's sleepover.... I was really broken up when Ehud walked out on me. Then I met Zinni, he was definitely the all american type, and eager to please too! But he didn't have a chance, he was a rebound guy... Then i met colin, things started off slow... but things heated up pretty quickly! At last I have found true love.....vote NO on the 26th Amendment!
I like the idea of trying to discredit a candidate because other authoritarian and corrupt leaders thin he's better than Bush. Let's hope Il, Arafat, or any of these other leaders don't come out against the common cold, or every true American would of course support the common cold.
<a HREF="http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/402919.html">Kerry: Arafat is 'an outlaw to the peace process'</a> <i> TAMPA, Florida - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry says he no longer considers Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to be a statesman, but rather "an outlaw to the peace process" in the Middle East who has been rightly shuffled aside. In a 1997 book, Kerry described "Arafat's transformation from outlaw to statesman." But in an interview with The Associated Press, he said he no longer views Arafat favorably. "Obviously, Yasser Arafat has been an impediment to the peace process," said Kerry, the likely Democratic presidential nominee. "He missed a historic opportunity and he's proved himself to be irrelevant." On Tuesday, Kerry visited a coffee shop in a Cuban-American neighborhood in Tampa before flying to Chicago for campaign appearances. He was awaiting results in four Southern states - Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas - with delegate elections. In a wide-ranging interview Monday with the AP, Kerry said Arafat "blew his opportunity" to be effective in 1999 and 2000. "He was (a statesman) in 1995," Kerry said, recalling frequent White House meetings between Israeli and Palestinian leaders in search of peace in the Middle East. "As far as I'm concerned, he's an outlaw to the peace process." President George W. Bush's administration has ruled out dealing with Arafat, claiming he is tainted with terror against Israel, a close U.S. ally. In the peace process, the administration has dealt only with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and senior Palestinian officials appointed by Arafat.............. </i>
