Kerry got it completely wrong
Autre édito sur le même sujet qu'en allemand (que j'ai retraduit dans des pans entiers^^;, je m'auto-plagie^__^)mais cette fois pour ce bon Joe! Celui-ci a répondu sur ma copie à ma question "does that mean that American are dumb?" par un "absolutely" fracassant! Sacré Joe!
This morning, Europeans are waking up with a hang-over. Our most terrifying nightmare has become true: George W. Bush has been re-elected president of the United-States. Worst, against all our expectations, the results of this election are undisputable: Ohio 2004 was not Florida 2000. Bush has won not by a sliver but by a 3.5m wide margin. With 58.9m votes, he has performed the best score for a Republican candidate since Ronald Reagan in 1984! But the humiliation does not stop here. The Republican Party has also obtained an overwhelming majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. How is this possible? Does that mean that Americans are dumb ? Why has John Kerry lost? He was the best!
First and foremost, he was not as arrogant as his rival: he had respect for Europe, which he knew very well since he was of French and Czech descents. He respected international law and was a convinced proponent of the United Nations. He had nothing but praise for international cooperation and multilateralism and consequently was most critical of Bush’s course of action in Iraq. Second, Kerry was concerned with the preservation of the welfare state. He championed the Social Security and promised to improve the living conditions of the underprivileged American citizens (ethnic minorities, working and lower middle class). No doubt, Kerry was perfect…for us. Two weeks ago, a survey revealed 75% of Europeans voted Kerry. Too bad, it was the Americans and not us, Europeans, who were called to the ballot box!
And that’s why, Kerry’s defeat comes as no surprise. His campaign has completely missed the point and has not addressed the right issues that concerned America. On the war in Iraq, Kerry doesn’t seem to have perceived the depth of the traumatism surrounding September 11th‘s events. His proposal of a “global test”, which many falsely interpreted as a control from international community over America’s foreign policy, has sundered him the support of the voters. Many of them felt that the war on Iraq is justified because they had been attacked three years ago. Kerry has neglected the importance of patriotism. Likewise, Kerry has failed to see the relevance of moral values. Bush has fought the good fights, defending traditional family values: against abortion, against same sex union, for death penalty and religious zeal/devotion/affirmation. Karl Rove, Bush’s campaign’s advisor, has played a key part in the Republican tidal wave by organising referendums in eleven states about homosexual marriage. These ballots have helped to mobilize conservative voters, who would not have voted Bush or Republican otherwise.
But above all, Kerry’s main fault lies in his personality. He is a man of paradoxes and appears to the voters as incoherent if not weak. He was neither a proponent nor a disparager of gay marriage. Whereas his challenger to the Democrat nomination Howard Dean adopted a clear stance against the war in Iraq and advocated for its end, John Kerry, who in the Congress voted for it, condemned the conflict while maintaining troops in Iraq. Where was the difference with Bush’s program? It was hard to know where he stood and he did not inspire confidence. On the contrary, George Bush’s message did not weaver: the United States had to continue its war on terrorism and had the right to wage a pre-emptive war to defend itself. Whereas Bush appeared as a self confident commander in chief and a more able statesman in time of war, Kerry was regarded as a lunatic. Under these conditions, how could he ever win ?
First and foremost, he was not as arrogant as his rival: he had respect for Europe, which he knew very well since he was of French and Czech descents. He respected international law and was a convinced proponent of the United Nations. He had nothing but praise for international cooperation and multilateralism and consequently was most critical of Bush’s course of action in Iraq. Second, Kerry was concerned with the preservation of the welfare state. He championed the Social Security and promised to improve the living conditions of the underprivileged American citizens (ethnic minorities, working and lower middle class). No doubt, Kerry was perfect…for us. Two weeks ago, a survey revealed 75% of Europeans voted Kerry. Too bad, it was the Americans and not us, Europeans, who were called to the ballot box!
And that’s why, Kerry’s defeat comes as no surprise. His campaign has completely missed the point and has not addressed the right issues that concerned America. On the war in Iraq, Kerry doesn’t seem to have perceived the depth of the traumatism surrounding September 11th‘s events. His proposal of a “global test”, which many falsely interpreted as a control from international community over America’s foreign policy, has sundered him the support of the voters. Many of them felt that the war on Iraq is justified because they had been attacked three years ago. Kerry has neglected the importance of patriotism. Likewise, Kerry has failed to see the relevance of moral values. Bush has fought the good fights, defending traditional family values: against abortion, against same sex union, for death penalty and religious zeal/devotion/affirmation. Karl Rove, Bush’s campaign’s advisor, has played a key part in the Republican tidal wave by organising referendums in eleven states about homosexual marriage. These ballots have helped to mobilize conservative voters, who would not have voted Bush or Republican otherwise.
But above all, Kerry’s main fault lies in his personality. He is a man of paradoxes and appears to the voters as incoherent if not weak. He was neither a proponent nor a disparager of gay marriage. Whereas his challenger to the Democrat nomination Howard Dean adopted a clear stance against the war in Iraq and advocated for its end, John Kerry, who in the Congress voted for it, condemned the conflict while maintaining troops in Iraq. Where was the difference with Bush’s program? It was hard to know where he stood and he did not inspire confidence. On the contrary, George Bush’s message did not weaver: the United States had to continue its war on terrorism and had the right to wage a pre-emptive war to defend itself. Whereas Bush appeared as a self confident commander in chief and a more able statesman in time of war, Kerry was regarded as a lunatic. Under these conditions, how could he ever win ?
posted by Andrea @ 7:09 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home