Democracy in action.
Well, democracy as it should be truly manifested, and unlike the ‘democracy’ that Mehitabel wishes to promote.
The consequences will perhaps be more powerful individuals taking a stand against the political status-quo. And that can only be a good thing.
Well, in Mehitabel’s defense, s/he does say “Look, of course he’s entitled to his opinion. Of course he’s the mayor of a great city and a powerful person and can say whatever the hell he wants. Of course there’s a free press and they can and should report this.” I think that’s a valid democratic view.
However, I am fairly surprised at the lack of knowledge the OP seems to have about current world opinion towards GWB.
Thanks for the answers. Oh no, I know a bit about the sentiment re Bush in the UK, after all I read the Straight Dope 
What surprises me is the breach of protocol and the sheer rudeness and lack of diplomacy. I’m just amazed that an elected official could say such things and not, at the least, get laughed out of office.
And I also think it’s funny that Dubya gets routinely raked over the coals for speaking bluntly and ’ and dividing the world into good and evil, and here’s Red Ken doing exactly the same thing, and the same people who might be going out to protest the cowboy tomorrow are today smiling and saying ‘Good on ya, mate’ or whatever folks say.
But I do like the idea of making the motorcade pay the fee. That’s a great way to register his feelings without making himself sound like a spoiled 19-year-old Starbucks-window-smasher. And Dubya, who has a genial sense of humor, should hand the fee to him personally, wrapped in a red ribbon, along with a separate donation for charity. That would be cool.
Oh, FWIW, the protests, esp. Granny Climbing the Fence, were covered on 2 of the 3 breakfast programs this morning rather extensively; on CBS it was the lead story. So there’s plenty of coverage over here.
I admire Ken, both for his honesty and for his willingness to do the politcally unpopular if he thinks it’s right.
The London congestion charge is a case in point. When he first raised the idea it was greeted by universal horror in the media but the truth is that it has been a great success. Figures culled fom New Scientist say that 50,000 fewer cars travel into London each day. Journeys in the zone are 14% quicker and Buses are 60% more reliable. Not only that but they have raised £68 million ( close to $100 million ) which is all to be spent on public transport.
Doing this was politically brave, many, many people and media outlets declared that Ken would never be elected again and would be hated by the common Londoner. The reverse seems to be true. I also read that Ken’s department is now overrun with observers from the fair city of New York … looking to copy his policies ( well the transport ones at least )
Livingstone will certainly be re-elected (with an increased majority) - his position on Bush is entirely in tune with London (and UK) electors.
Do watch for the number of demonstrators on the streets of London when Bush visits.
Also Livingstone won as an independent :eek: last time - just think how popular you have to be to defeat two party machines. labour (Balir’s party) are about to offer Livingstone the official Labour nomination (thus increasing his majority further).
I’m afraid many of us don’t find the Iraq situation laughable, and fervently wish that the great country that is the US elect a decent leader.
Sorry, I don’t have a link, but the Daily Telegraph (the most right-wing UK national paper) recently ran a lengthy article on how bad Bush was for the world (and how important the US - UK relationship was). They mentioned, for example, that US contractors had received over $80 billion to rebuild Iraq, with UK contractors getting scraps. The Telegraph called this ‘the Texan way of doing business’.
P.S. The Telegraph also said that British prisoners held without legal representation in Guantanamo Bay would even not be discussed, which showed how little regard Bush has for the ‘special relationship’.
As a rule of thumb, you get cheap laughs in england by criticizing any politician, especially the PM and POTUS. Yes, I’m sure what he said was over the top, but that by no means people won’t love him for saying it.
Huh? They’re talking about it on Thursday. The Telegraph needs to hire some researchers.
I am heartened by this thread - I love Red Ken and danced for joy at his congestion charge, and won’t comment on his remarks in this thread except to be generally supportive - but I just checked the Guardian and read this:
What gives?
Oh, he was the guy who did that car congestion thing? I knew I’d heard his name before. That was cool. Wish we could have that in NY.
But world politics–still an idiot. Should stick to what he was elected for.
I believe you are forgetting Richard Nixon’s “I have a secret plan to end the Vietnam War” campaign stunt of '68, which appears to have been a complete fabrication (so if he didn’t lie his way into that war, he can be said to have lied his way into office in order to perpetuate and expand that war).
Lyndon Johnson led the charge for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution on the basis of dubious and possibly non-existent attacks on U.S. vessels in the waters off Vietnam, and which served as the legal justification for our major expansion of that undeclared war. In fact, you can cite Presidents going back to Harry Truman for exaggerated and false claims, first about the value of propping up French imperialism in Vietnam and then promoting our own separate involvement there for what was supposed to have been the vital purpose of halting Soviet/Communist expansion in Southeast Asia.
Exaggerating or lying about the need for war is not exclusive to the Bush Administration, Republican Presidents, American Presidents in general and certainly not unknown among foreign leaders of various political persuasions.
Having a little historical perspective helps in judging stupid remarks like those of ol’ Ken.
Well, Bush is more corrupt than Nixon, because Nixon is dead. And He’s more corrupt than Reagan because, well,…because of Reagans condtion.
Does he have to greet Pres. Bush today when he arrives?
I think that was part of the reason he was elected - he’s famous for making inflammatory leftie remarks, it’s what he’s best known and loved for…
Also, he’s been around a very long time and survived numerous extremely concerted efforts by governments to bury him for good. He’ll probably still be around long after G. W. Bush has been booted out of office. Whatever you want to say about red Ken he’s not an idiot…
Oh. Well if he does this sort of thing a lot, I guess the context makes more sense. I was just boggled at a Mayor saying something so deliberately provocative on the eve of a visit by a VIP in his city.
I also want to know if he plans to have any interaction with Bush while he’s here. Should be fun to watch. Is there a lot of coverage in Britain about this visit?
Jackmanii, I saw an article by William Safire a few months ago in which he claimed Nixon never said the “secret plan” thing, that it was a reporter who put the words in Nixon’s mouth. Does anyone know if this is true? Not that I trust Safire further than I can throw him, natch, but I don’t want to dismiss this out of hand.
Daniel
Livingstone doesn’t have to meet Bush and has declined an invitation to do so, preferring to host a reception for anti-war protestors instead.
There has been an enormous amous of media coverage of the visit during the last few weeks – especially in London.
Interestingly, a poll amongst Londoners has shown clear antipathy towards this visit at this time (66% against, 34% for). Of those who were opposed, 29% cited the war in Iraq, 20% policing costs, 19% increased risk of terror attacks, 16% disruption to Londoners, 11% pomp and ceremony surrounding the visit and 5% cited the team of armed agents accompanying the president.
None of those things are likely to be of much concern to people polled elsewhere in the UK of course, although the Prime Minister’s own constituency of Sedgefield is included on the itinery and Mr Bush should expect less opposition there.
:), spooje.
Considering that the IRA have been on ceasefire since 1997, why should they?