BBC News Online's Kevin Anderson is keeping a weblog as the US prepares to go to the polls on 2 November.
He is recording his thoughts and observations - both serious and not so serious - as well as finding answers to your questions.
Why not bookmark this page and come back to it for the latest updates?
31 October
WASHINGTON, DC :: 2016 GMT
Just got a text message from a Democratic friend. "ITS OVER. PACKERS WIN. KERRY DAMN WELL BETTER WIN!"
There's a call from another Democratic friend. He saw some eerie foreshadowing in the final minutes of the game.
With just minutes to go, the Redskins appeared to score the go ahead touchdown, but it was called back on an illegal procedure penalty.
My friend said, "When they showed the replay, nobody could see any illegal procedure."
But Green Bay scored one more touchdown to ice the game, as my friend said.
So there you have it folks. The Redskins have lost.
As I said, since 1936, if the 'Skins lose or tie the game closest to the election, the party in the White House loses. Now, we'll to wait until Tuesday, Wednesday to see.
WASHINGTON, DC :: 2012 GMT
The Redskins have just scored a touchdown, six points, and added the extra point.
The Redskins could take the lead with another touchdown and extra point. Nail biter. Just like the election is going to be.
WASHINGTON, DC :: 1925GMT
It's the fourth and final quarter. Washington has just missed a field goal attempt.
Green Bay leads 20-7 with about 10 minutes left in the game.
But for those of you who aren't familiar with American football, it's not like the last 10 minutes of a football (soccer in the US) match.
The final 10 minutes can last an eternity.
The Redskins are only two touchdowns from the lead, but so far Washington's offence has been stuck in neutral.
WASHINGTON, DC :: 1839 GMT
Halftime, and Green Bay leads Washington. 17-7.
WASHINGTON, DC :: 1814 GMT
Green Bay's quarterback Brett Favre had been complaining of a sore hand earlier this week, but as the Washington Post puts, he is "shredding Washington's vaunted defence".
Green Bay has scored on each of their first three possessions, and with the first quarter finished, the Packers lead the Washington Redskins 17-0.
See the full explanation below. But since 1936, if the Redskins tie or lose, the party in the White House loses the election.
Read more:
[External websites]
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.
WASHINGTON, DC :: 1633 GMT
Well, I put in a call to my father the Green Bay Packers fan, and he said John Kerry really blew it when he called the home of the Packers Lambert Field, instead of Lambeau field.
Just as with football in the rest of the world, American football is like a religion to fans.
And there are few fans more fervent than Green Bay Packer fans.
John Kerry is definitely a Green Bay Packer backer today
|
"You gotta realise what the Packers mean to a large part of Wisconsin," my father said.
Mr Kerry upset a lot of Green Bay fans, and my father said its all over the local newspapers.
John Kerry was probably was still thinking of Lambert Airport down in St Louis.
But as my father pointed out, John Kerry can almost certainly count himself a Packer backer today.
Why? Yet another off-the-wall presidential predictor and this one has to do with the local American football team here in Washington, the Redskins.
Since 1936, if the Washington Redskins win their game nearest the presidential election, the current party in the White House wins.
If the Redskins lose or tie, the current party in the White House loses.
So, John Kerry doesn't care whether the Packers are playing in Lambert or Lambeau Field, he wants the Packers to win.
(Actually, the Pack is here in Washington playing at FedEx field.)
The game just started. The Redskins are down 3-0. That's just a field goal so nothing decisive yet.
Read more:
[External websites]
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.
WASHINGTON, DC :: 1500 GMT
In honour of the Sunday morning political talk shows, I'm going to put my pundit hat on.
Forget about the FL-OH-PA math. Think about WI-IA-MN.
Will a John Kerry gaffe cost him votes with American football fans in Wisconsin?
|
It has been conventional wisdom that whichever candidate wins two out of three of Florida (FL), Ohio (OH) and Pennsylvania (PA) will most likely win the election.
We've crunched the numbers, had a play with numerous scenarios here in Washington and so many of the Electoral College projections come down to Wisconsin (WI), Iowa (IA) and Minnesota (MN).
Ohio and Pennsylvania seem to be tilting towards John Kerry.
He has had a slim but consistent lead in Pennsylvania. Ohio is tougher to call.
The most recent poll shows President Bush with a one-point lead.
And the Bush campaign believes it needs at least a three-point lead going into Tuesday to win in Ohio, to compensate for high Democratic turnout.
I can't see George Bush losing Florida.
Yes, I know Zogby's polling in Florida show Kerry with a two-point lead and showed him with an overwhelming lead amongst voters in Miami-Dade.
But I take into account consistency of polls, and most of the polls over the last month have shown George W Bush with a lead.
We've been running the numbers based on the assumption that Ohio and Pennsylvania go to Kerry and Florida goes to Bush.
Even the Bush campaign has been talking of scenarios in which they can win the election without winning with FL-OH-PA.
But the upper Midwest, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Iowa has been more unpredictable.
Leads have changed more often. The polls have been more volatile.
And in many scenarios, it all comes down to how Wisconsin goes. I grew up just seven miles from the Wisconsin border so have a sense of the state.
Madison is Kerry country. It's a progressive university town.
Milwaukee elected socialist mayors for several decades in the 20th Century, and is pretty reliable Democratic territory.
However, the suburbs of Milwaukee are overwhelmingly Republican, and the north is pretty solid Republican territory.
Much has been made of John Kerry referring incorrectly to the stadium of the Green Bay Packers American football team as Lambert Field as opposed to Lambeau.
My father is a Green Packer fan. Next time I talk to him, I'll have to ask him if Packer Backers are holding it against John Kerry.
I know it's silly, but in a tight election like this, small gaffes can tip the balance. Wisconsin is a very, very tight race, as is Iowa.
I can't tell you how it's going to go. No one knows.
But I can tell you that on election night, I'll be watching those states in the upper Midwest on Tuesday night.
Read more:
[External websites]
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.
WASHINGTON, DC :: 1316 GMT
Pollsters and pundits are scratching their heads.
States that were expected to easily fall into the Bush or Kerry column suddenly look competitive, causing the campaigns to scramble and journalists to finally give up trying to even hazard a guess as to the outcome of the election.
My jack-o-lanterns are spooky, not political
|
Hawaii, usually Democratic, suddenly seems in play, and the Democrats are pouring money into Arkansas, where they see they might have a chance of taking the state.
So, with the polls all over the place, I will flag up a few polls and predictors where we can just say methodology be damned.
First off, Happy Halloween!
Last night, there were witches, baseball players and cowboys walking up and down the street in the Adams-Morgan neighbourhood here in Washington.
I carved my jack-o-lantern yesterday but kept it strictly non-partisan, trying to do my best approximation of Jack, the Pumpkin King, from Nightmare before Christmas.
But, for those who just can't get away from politics, there is a Pumpkin Poll.
You can download the pattern for George W Bush or John F Kerry and carve away.
The pumpkin polls show a landslide for the president, with George Bush winning 63% to 37%.
I say keep pumpkins out of politics!
Read more:
[External websites]
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.
30 October
WASHINGTON, DC :: 2217 GMT
Wow, Daniel in Lincoln in the UK certainly touched off a fair amount of comment when he asked: "Whether American people are finding the international view of America to be a major factor in their voting decisions, or whether the anti-war sentiment is based solely on casualties rather than how they're perceived by other countries?"
Before I give a round-up of some of the comments that have come in, hopefully a little context.
There are internationalists in both the Democratic and Republican parties who are concerned about world opinion.
As a matter of fact, George HW Bush's National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft was critical of George W Bush's action to depose Saddam Hussein.
He said pushing to invade Iraq would destroy the coalition that came together in support of the US after the attacks of 11 September 2001.
Now that is talking about the political elites in the US. Public opinion is a lot more complicated.
I remember in 1995 when Bob Dole launched his candidacy in Topeka, Kansas, that one of the biggest applause lines he got was when he said: "We must stop placing the agenda of the United Nations before the interests of the United States."
The UN is a favourite target of some conservatives.
And there are isolationists in both the Republican Party and Democratic Party.
Americans trace that sentiment back to the first president, George Washington.
But one telling poll came from CNN recently. It found that some 60% of Americans wished that George Bush would listen more to other nations.
He warned the nation to stay clear of foreign entanglements in his farewell address as president.
Americans respond
That's a really quick and dirty upsum. But let me get out of the way and let your comments speak for themselves.
Nathan of Dayton, Ohio, wrote: "Daniel, remember Americans are inclined towards isolationism and most haven't left the country, ever. Most people I know aren't too concerned about foreign opinion. For this, we are labelled arrogant.
"Of course, when citizens of Britain write to citizens of Clark County, Ohio, about how they think we should vote, they are being humble and just trying to help us slow-headed Americans out," he adds, referring to a UK newspaper campaign targeting undecided voters.
John from Scranton, Pennsylvania, wrote in to say: "Americans know the world hates us and hates Bush."
"The constant ad hominem attacks make it so that, while we may not like Bush, he is one of us. Pot shots from abroad are distinctly unappreciated," he adds.
Alice from Milwaukee in Wisconsin has lived abroad and believes that, for most, the casualties are driving anti-war sentiment.
But she says: "Those of us who have opposed the war since before it started know, even if Bush doesn't, that we are a part of the world, not its police force. Acting like a police force and going to war was simply the wrong thing to do."
And Jonathan Osborne from Minneapolis chides Daniel for drawing too broad a conclusion from an online chat with one Bush supporter.
"It's difficult to understand why you would allow a single American person to shape your view on how the entire country feels. I am completely against the war, not just for loss of life, but mainly because of our standing in the world," he said.
"Please don't jump to conclusions on the basis of one person's remarks. I'm getting tired of defending my country against people who are ready to disagree with the US on a moment's notice," he adds.
Hope that begins to answer your question, Daniel. Much appreciated to everyone who wrote in.
Read more:
[External websites]
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.
WASHINGTON, DC :: 1627 GMT
Dan in Kent in the UK asked: "Is there any feeling in the people you meet of a tarnished electoral system, especially after 2000?"
Among African-Americans, yes, absolutely, there is a sense that the electoral system failed.
While most Americans now seem to accept President Bush's election, African-Americans almost always say when I am speaking to them about politics that Mr Bush was "selected not elected".
I do hear that among some angry white Democrats, but not nearly with the frequency that I hear it from black Americans.
You go on to ask: "Are Americans wrong to view America as the finest democracy in the world or is it the detractors who are getting too much attention, or is this just not an issue to the people you meet?"
Americans are proud of their democracy because, quite rightly, democracy in America is more than the failure of election equipment, which in extremely close elections can have an impact on the outcome.
What I think a lot of people are forgetting is that in all elections, just like polls, there is a margin of error.
As I've mentioned before, across the United States, there is a 1.94% rate of ballot spoilage, and that is just one source of errors going into the system.
This has always been the case. However, in most elections in US history, this result has been outside the margin of error.
But when elections are this close, these errors can affect the outcome.
Now, throw into this mix a perennial battle between the two parties with the Republicans vigilant for voter fraud and the Democrats vigilant for acts of voter disenfranchisement, and that is where the real problems begin.
Some people think that the 17,000 lawyers now said to be preparing for poll challenges are just a result of the 2000 election.
In some ways, they are, but in other ways, they are merely the logical but extreme extension of battle the two parties have been fighting for decades.
Look back to the fight over what was called the Motor-Voter law in the early 1990s.
The Motor-Voter law was meant to increase voter participation by lowering the barriers to registration. Voters could register to vote when they got a driver's licence or at other public agencies like welfare offices.
Democrats argued that it was a bipartisan effort to get more people to vote, but Republicans thought that it would increase voter participation by people sympathetic to the Democrats.
The Motor-Voter law was passed just before the Democrats lost control of Congress.
Both parties have engaged in massive voter registration and GOTV (get out the vote) efforts since the mid-1990s.
Democratic and Republican poll watchers have levelled complaints of intimidation already in Florida.
And Republicans have challenged thousands of registrations in Ohio as I've mentioned before.
Also in that state, Republicans have signed up volunteers to challenge voters they don't think are eligible to vote.
Under Ohio law, voters may be challenged if someone thinks they aren't a US citizen, aren't old enough to vote, aren't a resident of the precinct they are voting in or haven't lived more in the state for more than 30 days before the election.
The challenges should be pretty easy to deal with. I stress should. Voters should be prepared with ID, a utility bill or the last four digits of their social security number.
But poll workers are bracing for delays, charges of intimidation and general chaos. It's unprecedented.
Look, both parties are doing what they have always done, just more of it and more loudly.
Certainly there will be problems. There will machines that don't work as advertised. It has always been a problem. Now, the problems just come into sharper focus because the election is so close.
However, it is in the parties' best interest to flag up these problems and do so in a way that benefits their candidate.
As pollster John Zogby said recently, there are lots of people who will not view the president as legitimate no matter who wins.
If faith in the American democracy is eroded, a fair bit of the responsibility lies at the feet of the parties.
WASHINGTON, DC :: 0431 GMT
I've always believed that this election, more than any in my lifetime, was going to be decided by events beyond the control of either candidate - and now Osama Bin Laden comes out with a new home movie.
One commentator saw it as a play by Bin Laden to become a political force.
It did seem to have a much more nuanced, political, and strategic message than past Bin Laden tapes.
Such as the part, where he said: "Security is an important pillar of human life. Free people do not relinquish their security. This is contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom."
Democratic blogger DailyKos said that hand wringing by Kerry supporters over the tape was unwarranted.
He said it was as if Bin Laden was saying: "I'm still here. You haven't caught me. And you went after the wrong guy. I just thought I'd remind you."
"Now, why that helps Bush is beyond me," he wrote. A wash when it comes to the election, he thought.
And for once, Republican blogger Ann Althouse at Instapundit agreed.
"My advice to Americans: Vote for whoever you would have voted for anyway!" she wrote.
What do you all think out there?
Will it remind undecided voters that President Bush failed to capture Osama Bin Laden before invading Iraq?
Or do you think it will stoke fears about terrorism, an issue on which Mr Bush polls better than Mr Kerry?
Read more:
[External websites]
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.
Your comments and questions:
Dear BBC, in reference to your leftist blogger writing about our elections and Osama Bin Laden, he's missed the point. Bin Laden is looked down upon much more than your views of President Bush. Yes, Bin Laden is still at large, but then look at what all has transpired. Afghanistan is no longer under the control of the Taleban, many of Bin Laden's supporters are either dead or captured. Pakistan has cracked down, Syria and Libya have had to reduce their direct support of terrorist organisations. Yes, the world remains a dangerous place, but it is a much less friendlier place for the extremists. That is something President Bush shall continue to pursue while a President Kerry would become simply Jimmy Carter II.
Keith A Peregrine, Philo USA
If Bush wins again, I really want to move to Europe. Can anyone over there offer me a job? I have a MA in Psychology and years of non-profit and international experience. Please help!
Alex Galyuk, Los Angeles, CA, USA
I still don't understand what Americans have got against pencils! In the UK, we find that a piece of paper and a pencil is enough to cast our vote ... pencils rarely break down and are very cheap to replace. I am minded of the millions of dollars spent by NASA on creating a pen that could write in space - the Russians simply used pencils!
Nick, Birmingham, UK
As a US Democrat, if Bush wins I will be highly sceptical of the outcome because of the amount of deception that has come from the Republican Party targeted in direct mail campaigns at Republican voters. The majority of Republican voters I have personally spoken to have a grossly misinformed, yet adamant viewpoint. Most do not read major news publications, nor would believe them if they did.
Ed Eastman, Hillsborough, North Carolina, USA
The issue here is not what happens or should happen to Bin Laden. It's what happened to the organisation he represents since 9/11. I believe al-Qaeda has been mortally weakened by the relentless American drive to destroy it. As for the tape itself, I don't think it will determine the voting intentions of most Americans. Rather, I think it may remind them of the terrible incident of 9/11 and vote for a president who takes terrorism most seriously.
Mose Marcos, London, UK
The morally correct choice is Nader. The intelligently practical choice is Kerry. The abysmally ignorant option is Bush.
Gen. Lee T. Doff, Chloride, Arizona
Now that the football game is over, and the Packers have beat the Redskins, the fans have gone home and are neighbours with on another once again. Will this be the same after the polls have closed and a President is elected? "Time" magazine had and interesting cover, that I briefly saw, that asked the question, "Can the rift between the parties be mended, on a national, state and civilian level?" What do you think? Are we a nation more divided than ever on a social, moral and political levels?
Bob Bowerman, Long Beach, CA USA
My seven yr old Grandson Bailey that lives with me, is a Bush Fan. We debate the merits of each side, When I take Kerry's side he just gets mad and starts chanting 'we want President Bush' and doesn't listen anymore, that is how the whole US is.
Richard Comisford, Alexandria, Ohio, USA
In my view, two groups of people can make John Kerry a clear winner. American Citizens living abroad and youngsters voting for the first time. I have not seen any opinion polls showing the influence of these groups on the American election.
Kulathu Sarma, Geneva, Switzerland
Wow I wasn't sure if that was Katie talking or the Teachers Union. The Constitution states freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion. I see no problem in a President showing his faith. As for the direction of the country, we are fine. My only thing is to stop fighting these savages with political correctness. The only thing the zealots understand is power and force, and I believe Bush will do that more than Kerry.
John Bergeron, Duluth, Minnesota
Our only hope to live in a peaceful world is through intercontinental respect, understanding, and an honest effort to support the rights and beliefs of all human beings, who can and will eventually live side by side. Our best immediate hope as Americans to work toward those goals is to elect a fresh representative voice for America, President John F. Kerry.
Teri, Franklin, USA
Let the one who started the war mess clean it up!
Hen Ling, Singapore
As an American citizen I cannot comprehend any thinking person who would vote for Bush. Over 1100 dead US troopers, as well as likely tens of thousands of maimed and injured. Now we have 100,000 dead Iraqi innocents. Now the Brits have been located to hazardous locations in support. All for no good reason. War is hell, unjust wars are criminal. Send Bush back to his Crawford ranch.
James J. Wilson, Peoria AZ USA
Kevin, Thanks for your illuminating answer to my question about the electoral college and faithless electors. As a follow up can you explain how the electors for each state are decided. Are they simply nominated by the winning party?
Mark, Paignton, UK
I am writing here because I live so far from home (California) and feel so incredibly helpless. Yes, I have cast my absentee ballot but it does not seem like enough. I just wish there was more that I could do to open the eyes of other Americans to not only the insanity of the Bush government but also to the importance of America's role in the rest of the world. I wish that every American spent a year of their lives outside the country, watching it from a distance is so enlightening.
Megan, US citizen in Glasgow, Scotland
Being so far away it is difficult to fathom the atmosphere in the US election in its entirety. As far as outsourcing goes, the re-election of Bush is good for us in India. At least that is what everyone says. But it is very difficult for me to understand why Bush should stand a chance for re-election when it is obvious that he is getting deeper into a mess and leading his country into a war of the world against terror which he has turned into only a war against the US. This is most unfortunate for the Americans.
Ashok D Dange, Goa, India
I am afraid. I'm afraid for my country; I am so afraid that November 3rd will find me facing four more years of fear beneath George Bush... and ashamed to face the world community. I'm sickened by the possibility that the world cannot hear those of us who are pained by the loss of American integrity, and are desperately demanding change...that we are drowned out by the easily bought and the quick-to-convince. I am so very, very afraid.
Maggie Doane, Boston, Massachusetts: USA
There seems to be a distinct possibility that Bush could win the popular vote but lose the electoral college, like Gore four years ago. If this happens, could Bush run again in 2008? Is this likely and is there any precedent for a one term president running again?
Rudi, London, UK
Quick query - apologies if this has already been covered, but I was wondering if the number of electoral college votes has always been the same since the beginning of elections? I would imagine that the population of some states has fluctuated dramatically over the years (Nevada, New York etc) - is this fluctuation reflected in the college votes?
Nick, Manchester, UK
To answer Nancy's question, there are many in the United States who think the Iraq War will become another Vietnam war. The irony that Kerry protested that war in his youth and now opposes the one in Iraq, which may become very similar, is quite striking. If you listen to the US media, commentators are always trying to draw parallels between Vietnam and Iraq, and now some (although President Bush constantly denies it) claim there will soon by a Vietnam-like draft. I am 19 myself and am enjoying my college days but it is likely they would be taken from me in a draft. In spite of this however, I have already voted early for George Bush. I am a Catholic and take my faith seriously and simply cannot reconcile myself with voting for Mr Kerry because of his stance on abortion.
Chris, Maryland, US
Those undecided voters - though it is beyond me how you can be undecided at this point - who were leaning towards Bush, will more than likely be further wooed by the linchpin of his campaign, that terrorism is still pervasive and we must continue the war against terrorism. Those undecided voters leaning towards Kerry, who see the need for policy change to change the attitude towards America that is spawning terrorism, will take this threat as a signal that Bush's war gaming is just not working. In the end, the results of November 2nd will be a testament to what kind of reaction the American people want to have to terrorism.
Megha, New York, New York, USA
I found it shocking that Bin Laden looks pretty well-kept for a fugitive. Seeing this free and sanguine terrorist on TV made me angry, but it also reminded me that President Bush has been thoroughly inept and incompetent in conducting the war on terrorism. As reported in the media, al-Qaeda would prefer President Bush over President Kerry because President Bush's policies are more polarising and thus, better for Al Qaeda recruitment. It would not be amiss to conclude that the timing of the tape is because Bin Laden has perceived that there is a real chance that President Bush may lose to John Kerry. To ensure a Bush victory, Bin Laden seems to be banking on the assumption that Americans will be outraged enough by his negative comments about President Bush that that they will re-elect him.
Bob da Silva, Charlotte, NC, USA
I would think that the British would hope for a Kerry victory so that their own soldiers would be coming home sooner than later. I seem to remember the British public were against Tony Blair's decision to support Bush in the invasion of Iraq. What say you?
Judy, Dallas, TX
Kevin, did you ever watch a 70's film called Three days of the Condor ..... no I'm not a Robert Redford fan, but the conclusion of the film has an uncanny familiarity with the reality of 21st Century life. The film is about the discovery of a coded message that proved the US Military had carried out exercises to establish the force required to invade a major Middle Eastern country, in a move to secure oil. The ending comment has stayed in my mind for 20 years: "When petrol in people's car and gas in people's boilers runs out, the American people will stop caring about human rights and demand that the US sends military to the Middle East and get that oil". Maybe Mr Bush was watching the film too .....
Farzad M, London
One major electoral change that will NEVER happen is the simplest - make Election Day a national holiday/day off from work so that people will actually have time to go to the polls - not just right before or after work. Polls are usually open from 7am to 8pm and people commute/work from 8am to 6.30pm or 7 pm and often have little chance to actually vote.
Ed B, London, UK (from Boston, Mass)
In reviewing the blog to get another sense of opinion (sad that I can't even trust my own country's media reports) & how they align w/my beliefs, I remain undecided STILL on whom to vote for. I commend Bush for how he got us thru 9/11, yet I've watched ALL adult members in my family lose their jobs, get different ones only to lose them to outsourcing overseas or higher taxes/insurance forcing them out of business.
I distrust Kerry's flip-flopping; yet know we need a change of leadership. I just don't see anyone running that can do the job. I have joked with co-workers that I'd vote for Robin Williams: internationally knowledgeable, honest in his opinions/beliefs and still American at heart. Doing that, I'd be throwing away my vote or would I be? One thing is for sure, I WILL be voting - I just don't know yet who for.
Tomi, Dawsonville, USA
What Americans need to ask is why did Bin Laden say what he said? Who does HE want to win the election? By attacking Bush, it would seem that he really wants Bush to win - which makes sense, as Bush has been Bin Laden's best recruiter post 9/11!
Mike Goss, Carnoustie, Scotland
I've read: "A blatantly obvious attempt to influence the US elections" on bbcnews.com and heard the same sentiment elsewhere. I believe this is wrong for the following reason.
"Influence the election" presumably means tip it towards one candidate or the other. But it is not obvious which way he wants to tip it -- to Bush or to Kerry? Therefore it cannot be obvious that he wants to tip it.
I don't believe bin Laden cares who wins. He is a professional fund-raiser for terrorism, and a very successful one at that. He is laughing at the US and holding out his cap so other anti-US interests will toss some coins in. That's all.
Ben Sargent, Framingham, Massachusetts
I think that Bin Laden's "in your face" video merely demonstrates that the Bush Administration has wasted time, resources and our relationships abroad in Iraq. The real enemy is alive and well and continuing to endanger us.
Carol A. Sigmond, New York, NY
The Bin laden tape will help secure the presidency for Bush. This is the October Surprise beautifully gift wrapped for the President. The election is OVER!!!
J. Jones, Tallahassee, Fl. USA
Of course what Bin Laden says will stoke fears of terrorism in the US. Europeans are asking the wrong questions, because you people live with a different set of assumptions. Americans know that within 50 years most of Europe will be Islamic. Naturally you feel a policy of appeasement towards radical Islam is in your best interest.
There is of course historic president for this. Europe just rolled over and played dead for Hitler. Your tolerance and complicity is well documented. Europe, led by France, has long wanted to shift the balance of power away from the United States, and feels an alliance with the Arab world would support that shift nicely. Americans are not surprised by this either. To the majority of Americans, Frances' image as the world's political prostitute remains untarnished.
America has declared itself in fighting the war on terror. We have committed our precious children to fighting this war against powerful oppressive forces that threaten the safety of us all. That's why Bush will win the election. Because though Europe never learned the lesson, Americans have. "Where there are no men, you must be a man."
Tzippi Naomi, USA
I'm a Chinese living in Canada. I just want to ask people who decided to vote Bush: Is there any possibility that Iraq war will become another Vietnam War?
Nancy Chen, Toronto, Canada
To answer a previous question posed by Jonathan from Australia, YES! There are many Americans who view Bush with great disdain. I am a social studies teacher and recently got finished teaching about the separation of church and state. We couldn't help but bring up Bush's name! Many Americans are horrified about where America is headed. Being from Cuyahoga County, one of the most important in this election, I can assure you that I will be casting my ballot for Kerry!
Katie Anderson, Cleveland, Ohio
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~48~RS~)
One-Minute World News
News services
E-mail this to a friend
Printable version
