Don’t be facetious, I was pointing out that the fact that a newspaper has a higher circulation does not automatically point to a higher quality publication.
Who the hell would care? You might read it and then carry on with your vote reguardless.
Is there any other election that the world in general cares about as much as the American one?
We will all bitch and moan. We may bitch more loudly after the election depending on who wins. It won’t kill anyone (ok so it will kill some people but they are too busy dying to email).
If some doofus decides who to vote for based on an email from a foreigner then they probably shouldn’t have voted anyway.
If Americans are not clear on who the world wants them to vote for…well they were not listening very carefully or they don’t care…and why should they?
(Fingers crossed that they are listening but it is all up to them. I hated their last decision I’m ready to keep hating him)
You got it right with “don’t care.” The only thing we need to consider when it comes to world opinion is foreign policy implications, if any, and we don’t give a fig what anyone else wants otherwise.
Mind your own business.
It seems to me that the best reply is rather straightforward:
An ill thought out campaign by the Guardian. It does not look good to interfere with another country’s democratic process. The replies recieved were amusing though. In that sense it was a journalistic triumph.
The Guardian’s plan is an idiotic one, but fuck me, some of those replies are funny.
I was 
We will.
We’ll take a lesson from your guys’ fantastic non-interventionist policies.
Yeah, but not in a good, deliberate way. They may have been provoked, but some of them display the attitude that the rest of the world find worrying about current American politics.
The Guardian’s plan is misguided, to say the least, but you have to suspect they were being a bit mischievious. They don’t say if these replies come from anyone who actually received a letter from a concerned Guardian reader. It looks more like they’ve been trolling the internet, word has got around, and these are the emails from those who’ve risen to the bait. And I bet they got quite a few more, less publishable, replies.
It’s not like it’s hard to get a rise out of the crazies on the net.
Judging by the tenor of the majority of the replies, I suspect that the Guardian has been Freeped, but I can’t be arsed to go to the Free Republic site to find out.
As for the interference by the Brits, as a Kerry supporter, may I say: Butt out, foreigners. All you accomplish is to solidify support for Bush. One of the charges the Bush camp makes against Kerry is that that he will sell out domestic security to curry favor with other nations, a charge that’s hard to refute with this kind of condescending meddling
Thank you for the mental picture of Guardian readership, Owlstretchingtime. I now visualize the average Guardian subscriber as The Modern Parents from Viz.
You’re getting close with the Modern Parents - Throw in a bit of Student Grant, all of Millie Tant and a soupcon of the Critics and you’ve pretty much nailed it.
Also “freeped” What’s that?
Really?
Then don’t you think it is time to get rid of the arrogance expressed by the US public and leadership in calling the president of the USA “the leader of the free world” (whatever that “free” means in practice). This even without asking the rest of the world about their opinion on the arrogant use of this self-proclaimed title?
In additon: Don’t you think that it is then also time to get rid of the arrogance expressed in words, tone and practice - time and time again - that the US somehow is in a self-declared position to dictate how the rest of the world is governed?
Salaam. A
Please do.
Salaam. A
“Freeping” is the process whereby posters at FreeRepublic.com, a rabidly right-wing Web site (think American version of the National Front), coordinate a barrage of hate-filled e-mails at targets of their ire.
I’m with mallocks on this one. I don’t think we can try and get rid of said “arrogance” by sticking our oar into US politics. We don’t like it when they do it to the rest of the world. We should teach by example.
I really hope Bush doesn’t win though. 
Probably 97% of people who get one of those letters will throw it out without giving it a second thought. (Maybe a third of those will open the letter and look at it first). 2.9999% will vote for Bush just to spite the arrogant foreigners who are trying to tell them how to vote. (No offense intended, unless you work for the Guardian) One guy will read the letter and vote for Kerry.
Clearly my reply right at the beginning of this thread has been ignored. So I’ll say it again.
The Guardian’s campaign has not encouraged anybody to write pro-Kerry or anti-Bush letters. Here’s the original article. Tell me where anything pro-Kerry is said, and I’ll shut up.
So why are most of the letters endorsing the Democrats? Elsewhere in the Guardian’s coverage, they explain:
And elsewhere on that same page is justification for the world seeking to have some influence in the US election, including:
“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
Not a criticism at you GorillaMan, but at the Guardian for using this as justification, the Decleration of Independence states only that “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind” required that they state why they wish to separate, it is not a demand at all.
Any letters from Guardian readers encouraging support for Kerry will fail. Kerry voters don’t need encouragement, Bush voters hate foreigners*, and undecideds/non-voters will be either perplexed or annoyed.
*That’s an exaggeration, obviously, but there is some truth to it.
So the same people who object to the U.S. invading and exerting authority over Iraq wish to claim benefits as a result of the U.S. having authority over the world? I’m not exactly overwhelmed by the strength of The Guardian’s argument.