What if Blair abandons the Bush boat ?

Great Debates
1

Blair in a sudden flash of inspiration or to save his political career decides to get out of the Bush coalition. Since so many Bush supporters view Blair as “the” major ally… and so many common americans view Blair with a lot of respect:

What would be the effects on the Bush administration and atitude ?

How would it affect the Iraqi situation and the relationship with the United Nations ?

How would this affect the reelection of Bush ?

How would ordinary americans view this ? Would this put in doubt Bushes legitimacy in their eyes ? Or would they start eating Freedom Muffins ?

Would this save Blair in the UK in fact or is the damage done to his reputation in Britain ?

2

Too little, too late :slight_smile:

3

The CIA will kill David Kelly.

Oh, they did allready…

4

Cite for that remarkable claim please.

5

Ha ha. exactly.

He’s been shamed. It’s the least he could do.

6

I’ll leave most of this to others. However…

You’d be appalled to discover that the vast majority of Americans probably can’t tell you who Tony Blair is. Remember that the posters to this board, even the ones who sometimes come off as morons, are far better-informed than the hoi polloi.

7

Blair believes in what he is doing over there, like Bush does. The Americans who do know who he is admire him a great deal for the most part. He was treated like a celebrity here in New York because he’s so eloquent and honest next to many of our politicos. We liked him for the same reason so many people like Dubya: he says what he believes and acts on it. There were half-joking editorials over here wishing he could run for President!

8

Next to nothing. Have you not yet notice the neo-con’s blinker like insistence on American Realpolitik? The removal of a Blair doesn’t improve the US’ standing in either western or eastern Europe. Blair’s removal simply provides a potential “nay” or “abstain” at the UN SC which, since France and Russia aren’t voting yes now anyway, makes next to no difference.

I suppose that the bur in Chirac’s saddle that Blair provides through discussions on farm subsidies and illegal immigration through the Chunnel would be missed at the Admin’s daily meetings.

The Bush legitimacy depends not at all on world opinion. Understand this; the Americans are vicious enough amongst themselves on this matter. Your opinion or the loss of a European supporter means next to nothing. As it should.

Maybe jjimm or others will pipe up on this, but Blair’s third way drive, and the realities of global politics have led to him making choices his supporters do not agree with. It’s the disarray of the opposition parties, and general dislike of the Tories, that has allowed the man to play his party the way he has, masterfully. If Blair can’t save himself with Bush, he certainly would cripple himself within his party by ducking out now. Nasty position to be in.

9

A brit here:

Despite what you may see in the press, TV etc the Iraq war is not really a hot-button topic over here.

People in Britain vote for many reasons - as elsewhere - but things like schools, hospitals, houseprices and the economy are what actually get governments elected.

There are some people who really dislike the war - but they are not going to vote for the opposition parties. They just won’t vote.

10

My take on what the ‘ordanary Americans’ would feel if Blair decided not to support Bush further would be either: A) One of betrayal and disappointment or B) A knowing nod that its all about saving his ass. It wouldn’t change Bush’s standing in this country one bit. Those that can’t stand him will feel the same reguardless. Those that support him will still feel the same and continue to support him. The vast majority that are floating in the middle will look to our own internal issues.

IMO, it would have either no effect on the election at all. It would not change the UN situation markedly, as France and Russia are in opposition to the US (though I think our relationships are starting to normalize a bit there). I think that, with Blair or without, the UK will remain a firm ally as they have for decades. They might not support us on another foolish Iraq type adventure, but I don’t see anymore of those on the horizon anyway. The UK has always been seen as one of our best and strongest allies, and from my friends in the UK they have always seen us as one of theirs (though I’m sure they aren’t a representative sample of the sentiments towards the US there).

France on the other hand has always been seen as a fair weather ally, even before this mess happened…and the French have alway percieved America as a major rival with a lot of resentment. Even if Blair jumped the boat, I don’t see the backlash against them by the ‘ordanary America’ that happened against France for just this reason…so no Freedom Muffins™. The mixed feeling over France goes back a LONG way before this, Rashak Mani, and has built up and subsided many times. As far as I know, there hasn’t been any kind of feelings like that towards our British cousins since about 1812.

From Grey

Very good summation. Take note of it Rashak Mani, as its pretty appearent you don’t understand America or how things work here. With very few exceptions the ‘ordanary American’ doesn’t factor in ‘world opinion’ when weighing the issues to choose who they are voting for. My guess is, that the average citizen of Brazil doesn’t either if you were being honest…or of France or any other country. What matters to them are internal issues, like hows the economy doing, do I have a job, are my pet issues being taken care of, etc etc?

Why people in other country feel that, because ‘the world’ dislikes Bush that should make a bit of difference in how we vote is beyond me. We can dislike him all on our own without your input, thanks. After all, OUR dislike (or liking) of some of YOUR leaders doesn’t seem to factor in much in your voting (e.g. Chirac’s isn’t exactly man of the hour here, and from what I’ve read not exactly the most popular guy either, outside of France…Blair on the other had IS very popular here, but will probably fall sometime with a no confidence vote). And just as your opinions should not weigh very heavily here (and don’t), ours should not and don’t weigh very heavily In Europe, Africa, Asia or Brazil for that matter.

So, no magic silver bullet to put the Bush bugaboo down for ya. We’ll just have to do it ourselves.

-XT

11

Blair will not abandon a pro-US policy on Iraq, He’s tied his colours to the mast and will not want the dreaded “U-turn” reputation that blighted John Major. Given the paucity of effective, electable opposition parties in Britain I can see very few scenarious in which he could lose the next election. Labour’s share of the vote may drop, but not enough for the Conservatives to replace them in government.

How would it affect Bush? Not my area of expertise, but I agree with Grey’s thoughts.

12

<for the second time in three days, picks up her WHAT XTISME SAID! sign and starts waving it around>

Excellent summation! So if Bush is re-elected (not my wish but it may happen), please don’t take it as some sort of “slap in the face to the rest of the world” or something like that. We generally want to be liked–well, except if the French are really happy with us, then we worry ;)–and don’t vote to piss our friends off, but for or against more mundane issues that affect our own lives closely. I don’t think we’re that different than other democracies in this regard. </hijack>

I’ve heard that Blair is partly protected by the fact that the guy who’d succeed him is sort of a non-entity–Britdopers?

13

I think GW, Runsfeld, Wolfowitz et al are “true believers” who feel called to lead the world out of the wilderness.

Whenever the subject of trying to get UN or other support for the Iraq adventure, GW supporters fall back on “we tried that before we went into Iraq and got mostly opposition so why bother?” What is unstated in that answer is the premise “we were right and you were wrong and you’re still wrong so your input is just a hindrance to our mission.” The administration’s position is that we know what we are doing and will accept your money and lives but we will run things because we know what’s best.

I don’t think Blair changing course would make a difference to GW. He would become just an apostate to be reviled and disregarded.

14

Rashak:

Sorry, but won’t matter much, if at all. Bush is committed to go the distance on Iraq. As is Blair. Nice try. We’ll wait for your next OP about how Bush might be undone. Perhaps you can brainstorm a bit with Reeder and come up with one super-OP to list all the scenarios that might end with Bush not being re-elected. Sniping is working. Try shock and awe.:slight_smile:

15

Hmmm… I might not be the right person to ask, since I don’t meet a lot of the UK electorate on a daily basis, but I believe this to be a fair statement. Support for Labour used to have a wide political spread, from the proto-commie militants, the “Old Labour” socialist heartland, the unions, and the more moderate/centrist Labour voters. The impression I get is that most of the far left has been alienated by fiscal and welfare policies, while much of the moderate electorate has been alienated by the Iraq war.

This was true for the last election, and I think support for the war, while in a majority at the time the troops went in, will actually screw their majority at the next. I still think there’s unlikely to be a Tory majority, however. There might just be a hung parliament.

Obviously I’m not in the UK, so take what I say with a pinch of saly, but I think the evidence of the largest protest in the entire history of the country ever might indicate that for quite a lot of people, it was indeed a hot-button issue.

I think this is probably correct, though I expect the LibDems to pick up a bit of slack from the anti-war crowd, since this was their consistent stance throughout - unlike the Tories, who backed the war but are now making hay over the Kelly affair.

16

Oh, I should say, I’d probably vote for Labour rather than LibDem if they decoupled from the Bush regime.

BTW, I don’t know who “Saly” is, but I never touched her, your honour. Perhaps I meant “salt”?

17

Minor note: the word ‘the’ in the phrase “the hoi polloi” is redundant. ‘Hoi’ means ‘the’.

18

Hey, if Californians can constantly talk about “the El Camino Real”, I think we can forgive “the hoi polloi”.

19

Another Brit adding my two penny worth - and profoundly disagreeing with Owlstretchingtime. As far as I can see Iraq certainly is only only “a”" but THE hot topic here in the UK - it’s a topic of conversation that no other political issue is right now, Now this may just be a middle class London perception but I don’t think so…

The Hutton Enquiry still has the potential to finish Blair IMHO, but what perhaps some of our transatlantic friends don’t realise is he can be got rid of at any time, he’s not elected for a term of office like a US President. Just as Maggie was ditched by the Tories when she looked like she was going to drag them down with her, it is a very possible scenario that Blair will be ditched for Brown before the next election. That would probably guarantee a Labour majority for another term…

But to go back to the OP, no I don’t see it making a blind bit of difference to Bush’s chances or the majority US voter view of him. Experience suggests the US don’t mind being lied to by their leaders so long as the economy is going well - over here hmmm the jury is out (well, Lord Hutton is out anyway).

20

Once again, cite please.