×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Sunday Thoughts

pudge (3605) writes | more than 10 years ago

United States 29

There wasn't a lot to talk about in the news this week. It was mostly just more of the same on Iraq, duelling war records, and duelling Democratic candidates. And I am gay-marriaged-out for the time being. Thankfully, the departure of Dean last week (yay!) seemed to lead to Ralph Nader's announcement that he is, once again, running for President.

Ralph Nader

There wasn't a lot to talk about in the news this week. It was mostly just more of the same on Iraq, duelling war records, and duelling Democratic candidates. And I am gay-marriaged-out for the time being. Thankfully, the departure of Dean last week (yay!) seemed to lead to Ralph Nader's announcement that he is, once again, running for President.

Ralph Nader

I don't even have a lot of thoughts about Nader in particular. I hate listening to him, and disagree with his politics (those are orthogonal for me). I don't anticipate he will get many votes, and if he does, more power to him; I don't care much about that, though of course I am glad he'll take more votes away from the Democratic candidate than the Republican.

I really don't think it will make a difference this time around, and I am unconvinced it made a difference last time around. People assumed the votes Nader got would have gone to Gore, though it's clear that some of the voters would have note voted, and others would have voted instead for other third-party candidates, and we have no idea where those numbers break down.

But I don't really care either way; it's how the system works, and I didn't cry about it when Bush lost "because of" Perot, and I didn't begrudge Perot when he "took votes from" Dole (though Dole wouldn't have won anyway, in my opinion).

So I don't have strong feelings about Nader being in the race; but with his entrance, my thoughts turn toward one of quadrennial annoyances: the undemocratic Commission on Presidential Debates. This nonprofit, "nonpartisan" (read: "bipartisan") organization has "sponsored" (read: "controlled") all general election debates since 1988.

It is co-chaired by a Republican and a Democrat (hence, "bipartisan"). It has no legal authority whatsoever to perform its powers, but the two major parties (again, "bipartisan") agree to only participate in debates they "sponsor," and they only "sponsor" debates where the candidates fit their rules (hence, "controlled").

There are three criteria they establish. The first is that the candidates meet the legal requirements for being the President. That's perfectly reasonable.

The second is that the candidate must be on enough state ballots to have a mathematical possibility of winning enough electoral votes to win the Presidency. While theoretically it is possible for someone to win the Presidency without meeting this criteria, I believe -- as most people would, I imagine -- that this, too, is reasonable.

The third is that the candidate must have at least 15% of the vote, as determined by the average of the most recently published results of five national polls. For those of you with your jaw hanging open right now: no, I am not kidding.

Here's the essential information you should allow to sink in:

The two major political parties are in collusion with each other to exclude third-party candidates from public exposure, and they use poll data -- which is unreliable and imperfect, not subject to any public scrutiny, and subject to change -- to determine which candidates the public will have access to in debates, a clearly important part of the democratic process.

The CPD kept Nader out of the debates the last time, and I, for one, would prefer that it didn't happen again. Since Nader is running as an independent, it's possible he won't even meet the second criteria anyway, let alone the third. But if he does, he should be allowed in the debates.

Now, some of you are probably thinking I just want Nader in the debates so he will pull votes away from Kerry (OK, "or Edwards"), to help the Republicans/hurt the Democrats. Nothing could be further from the truth: I blasted excluding third-party candidates from debates back in 1997 when Perot, who was poised to hurt Dole, was the one being excluded. This is not a partisan issue with me.

The issue for me is not that Nader might hurt the Democrats, but that the public is being denied access to information about candidates. In another piece I wrote back in 2000, I quoted the Democrat co-chair of the CPD, Paul Kirk, who admitted as much: "Our role is not to jump-start your campaign and all of a sudden make you competitive."

The arrogance behind Kirk's statement about jump-starting campaigns is astounding: if the people see Nader and like him enough to vote for him, how can this possibly be, in any way, a bad thing for democracy? That's the whole point of a general election debate.

The 2004 Iowa campaign becomes particularly instructive in this discussion: both John Edwards and John Kerry were at or below 15 percent in every poll I could find that was taken within a month before the first debate. And nationwide, they were even lower. It is most likely the case that one or both of them would have been excluded from the Iowa debates, if the CPD rules applied; instead, they finished the top two in that state, and one of them will win the party's nomination.

Yes, a primary race is different than the general election race, but the principle is the same: going in you don't know who you like best, and the debate gives everyone a chance to find out. By refusing access, you are refusing citizens the opportunity to make up their own minds.

You can make all the arguments you want about how you don't like third parties or our election process but none of that matters to this point: people are running for President under the law and the two major parties are colluding to prevent us from getting access to them.

Why am I bringing this up now, when the debates are so far away (they likely won't happen until September at the earliest)? Because if we don't talk about it until later, it will be too late. Maybe some intrepid reporter can ask Kerry and Edwards what they think about the CPD, and whether they plan to participate only in CPD-controlled debates.

Maybe they could even be asked if they see a conflict of interest in the fact that the two parties agree to be in only CPD-controlled debates, and yet the CPD is controlled by the two parties, or asked if they would have supported a system which would have excluded them in the Iowa debates.

I can dream.

29 comments

CPD (1)

M.C. Hampster (541262) | more than 10 years ago | (#8359718)


I can understand the need to have a requirement like 15% polling in order to keep the field from becoming too crowded. The debates would becoming useless if they included every person who met the other requirements.

However, 15% is an extraordinarily high threshold to have to reach. I think they could keep the field limited to "serious" candidates if it was at 2-3%. I realize using polls, which are not necessarily reliable isn't the best option, but I personally don't want to watch a Presidential debate with 15 candidates. *shrug*

Other than that, I'm pretty much in agreement with your post. I don't agree with Nader, and I don't particularly like him. I think his reaction to the leftists wanting him out of the campaign was justified. I understand the need for a two party system to keep consesus and to moderate policy, but there is no reason that we can't field more than 2 candidates.

Re:CPD (1)

buffer-overflowed (588867) | more than 10 years ago | (#8359782)

Gotta disagree with you Hampster. The 2nd criteria pretty much eliminates the majority of non-serious candidates. Most of the minor parties only appear on the ballots of a small portion of the states(IE: the prohibition party).

Poll-data is too unreliable, perhaps base it on achieving at least 2 percent of the total popular vote in the previous election? That would be better, but still not ideal.

As too it getting to crowded, so what? I mean really, what do debates really accomplish these days?

[robot]"I will treat social security as a lock box, we will not touch it"[/robot]
[idiot]"I umm... won't ahh touch social security"[/idiot]

They can't go anywhere but up.

How about this criteria... (1)

RevMike (632002) | more than 10 years ago | (#8360203)

In order for a candidate to participate in a debate, at least one elector pledged to that candidate must be in a winning position using the most generous margin of error in a major poll.

For instance, the candidate for the "We're Completely Krazy" Party (henceforth WACK) in Idaho trails the leader by 9.9 percentage points. The poll has a 5 point margin of error. The WACK slate of electors might win in Idaho. Once the WACKos have delegates to the electoral college, they might be able to tip an election by voting for one of the other major candidates in exchange for some influence over the administration - perhaps a WACKo in a cabinet post.

Until the WACKos can actually exercise that kind of influence, however, all they do is add noise to the already content free debates.

Re:How about this criteria... (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 10 years ago | (#8369226)

This does not diminsh any of my complaints about using poll data. It does diminish the effects, but doesn't speak directly to the complaints, such as that polls are not subject to public scrutiny, that "the only poll that matters is on election day," etc.

Until the WACKos can actually exercise that kind of influence, however, all they do is add noise to the already content free debates.

You do not know they can't win the election if they are given more exposure. That is opinion -- not fact -- based primarily on data that itself is based on the fact that most people don't know much about those candidates in the first place!

Re:CPD (1)

Otter (3800) | more than 10 years ago | (#8361043)

Gotta disagree with you Hampster. The 2nd criteria pretty much eliminates the majority of non-serious candidates. Most of the minor parties only appear on the ballots of a small portion of the states(IE: the prohibition party).

C-SPAN has held debates among the major minor candidates, all of whom (I believe) would meet the second criterion. They're definitely serious (you don't get on all those ballots without being dead serious) but we're still talking about 5-7 unelectable, monomaniacal nuts. I could do without them in the real debates. (Although, as you say those debates are pretty worthless anyway.)

Even if you support one of those guys, they're all single-issue candidates. The Natural Law Party guy answers every question by promoting meditation; the Taxpayer Party guy wants to solve everything by eliminating all taxes. They wouldn't contribute anything to a wider debate after the first question.

I agree, though, that 15% is too high. I'd go with 5%.

Re:CPD (1)

buffer-overflowed (588867) | more than 10 years ago | (#8362633)

The following parties have enough popular support that they should be included:
Libertarian Party, and the Green Party

I'd really like to see a Republican claim to be a conservative up against the Libs and a Dem claim to be a liberal up against the Greens.

Also, the NLP has endorsed Kuchinich. Wierdly.

Most of those smaller parties will not appear on the ballots of enough states to stand even a miniscule chance of winning.

Here's a list:
American Party - Did not appear on any ballots in 2000, and probably won't appear on enough this year.
Constitution Party - Will appear on the ballots of about 30 states. Possibly with Moore on the ticket. They meet the criteria.
Green Party - They have it.
Libertarian Party - Also has it.
Natural Law Party - Also has it.
Peace and Freedom Party - Nope.
Prohibition Party - Nope.
Reform Party - Possibly. Couldn't find the requisite information.
US Socialist Party - Nope.
Socialist Equality Party - Nope.
Socialist Worker Party - Nope.

Independants - None of them but Nader will secure enough ballots.

So, we'd have 6-7 parties debating and possibly 1 Ralph Nader. That's no worse than the democratic debates and at least HERE there will be differences of opinion.

Re:CPD (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 10 years ago | (#8363008)

I agree, though, that 15% is too high. I'd go with 5%.

So you think that using poll data to control the democratic process is a good idea.

Well, I know who to not invite to the next Constitutional convention.

All of you who believe polls should be involved in the process *at all* have not addressed any of the reasons why they should not be. How do you know the results aren't being forged or manipulated when it is not available to the public? How do you know the methodology is sound (sometimes it is made available in portions, sometimes it is not, and rarely if ever is it completely available)? How can you trust the results when we know it is often misleading or false? These are only a few of the reasons, but they are the most compelling.

And don't give me any of this nonsense about how YOU want to only hear the top candidates. I don't give a damn. This is not about what you want. I don't want to hear Nader, either; what's that got to do with democracy?

Re:CPD (1)

M.C. Hampster (541262) | more than 10 years ago | (#8365214)


So you think that using poll data to control the democratic process is a good idea.

You speak as if A) Debates are some enshrined right in the Consitution and B) Debates control the election.

Anyone who cares enough about politics to both vote and watch a debate should have enough ability to find out where each of the candidates stand on issues. Debates are secondary to the type of research that is possible now by our citizenry especially with the internet.

I think you are way overblowing the significance of debates.

Re:CPD (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 10 years ago | (#8366969)

You speak as if A) Debates are some enshrined right in the Consitution

No, I don't. However, many of our campaign laws are designed to protect the democratic process as described in the Constitution, such as the equal time laws for broadcast media. Those laws have been weakened and removed not because they were unconstitutional, but because they were deemed no longer necessary. I think that was wrong-headed, as their logic was only regarding equal time and fairness for the two major parties (but what a surprise, as the two major parties control the FCC).

So no, I am not saying debates are a part of the Constitution, but I am saying excluding candidates from the debates flies in the face of the principle of democracy enshrined therein.

and B) Debates control the election.

No, but they are certainly a damned big part of how people make their decisions.

Anyone who cares enough about politics to both vote and watch a debate should have enough ability to find out where each of the candidates stand on issues.

First, that's false on its face: it assumes everyone has the resources to find out all they wish to know (many people still don't have Internet access), and worse, it assumes that people who vote will do their homework if given the opportunity. That is one of the silliest things I've heard in awhile. If you want to exclude people from voting unless they do their homework so you can justify excluding candidates who are not in the debates, fine, more power to you.

Second, you are denying here that the debates are of unique value; even if we have knowledge about the candidates, the debates provide a unique opportunity to see them in action. You are also rejecting several other truths, such as that people are less likely to vote for people who are not in the debates *merely because* that sends the message to the voters that their vote would be wasted on those candidates; such as that it gives free exposure to certain candidates which amounts to free advertising that the excluded candidates don't get; etc.

Your justifications are weak, and still didn't address any of my points; you attempted, and failed, to reject the premise that debates are an important part of the process.

Re:CPD (1)

M.C. Hampster (541262) | more than 10 years ago | (#8367517)


What I disagree with is your assertion that the debates are a part of the democratic process (your words). I don't think how the debates are setup is to be defined as "part of the democratic process". Putting forward your opinions in whatever manner you wish, or responding to other's opinions in whatever way you wish is part of the democratic process. Doing it in a nationally televised debate setup the way they are is not, in my opinion, a part of the democratic process.

No, but they are certainly a damned big part of how people make their decisions.

As is television advertising, direct mailings, etc. Do you believe in public financing of all campaigns? There will always be inequality in the amount of representation one can present to the voting public in our only national election depending on your preexisting infrastructure, organization and popularity. The only way to completely correct this inequality would be through public financing.

First, that's false on its face: it assumes everyone has the resources to find out all they wish to know (many people still don't have Internet access), and worse, it assumes that people who vote will do their homework if given the opportunity. That is one of the silliest things I've heard in awhile. If you want to exclude people from voting unless they do their homework so you can justify excluding candidates who are not in the debates, fine, more power to you.

But just about everyone has access to the internet somewhere, like a library. Or they can simply contact the people running for literature (which they will gladly give them). So no, the fact is not false for that reason. And notice I didn't say that people will do their homework, so don't claim I said "one of the silliest things" you've heard because I didn't say that. I did say that people who care enough about politics should be able to do so.

Ultimately, you keep talking about the results of elections, while I am talking about the opportunity provided people. I look at the national debates as another opporutnity to find out about the candidates. And honestly, my only point was that in not having limits on the number of candidates who take place, you lose some of the unique value that debates have.

Re:CPD (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 10 years ago | (#8367582)

What I disagree with is your assertion that the debates are a part of the democratic process (your words).

Uh, and I disagree that 2 + 2 = 4.

Putting forward your opinions in whatever manner you wish, or responding to other's opinions in whatever way you wish is part of the democratic process. Doing it in a nationally televised debate setup the way they are is not, in my opinion, a part of the democratic process.

Putting food in your mouth and chewing and swallowing is eating. But doing so with a fork is not. I am not eating! I am using a fork!

As is television advertising, direct mailings, etc.

You are talking about what the candidates and parties and special interests themselves do. Here we are talking about the news media, and not just that, but the BROADCAST news media, which has a legal obligation to the American citizens.

I am not arguing for full equality. I am saying this is unequal and unfair and should be changed. Saying other things are unequal 1. doesn't mean they are unfair and 2. doesn't mean they should be changed too.

But just about everyone has access to the internet somewhere, like a library.

But not everybody ("anyone"), which is what you said.

And notice I didn't say that people will do their homework

Then your point has no meaning. You're saying that if their candidates aren't there, then they can go out of their way to get the information, which necessarily means that the bar is raised for those candidates and potential voters, which IS THE POINT.

Ultimately, you keep talking about the results of elections, while I am talking about the opportunity provided people.

You have it precisely backwards. I am talking about providing opportunity regardless of the results; you are justifying the lack of opportunity because of the results, which is an inherently undemocratic proposition.

Re:CPD (1)

M.C. Hampster (541262) | more than 10 years ago | (#8367905)


Hmm, I think this has gotten a bit out of control.

Let me say that I do agree with you that we should do what we can to raise the level of education and awareness among voters. I also completely agree that the current system is designed to keep out third-party or independent candidates, and that it is unfair. My concern in my original post was seeing candidate from the Furries Of America (FOA) Party joining the debate. Or 25 people on stage trying to debate for an hour. That was why I thought a compromise of lowering the threshold in polls might do the trick. Reading some of the other posts, just requiring that the party be on enough ballots to numerically win the Presidency through the electoral college might do the trick (although you have to worry about California :-).

Ultimately, I think we are mostly in agreement; I was just voicing a concern in my original post that opening the gate too wide may actually take away from the debate and mean less education and information for the voter.

Re:CPD (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 10 years ago | (#8369068)

My concern in my original post was seeing candidate from the Furries Of America (FOA) Party joining the debate. Or 25 people on stage trying to debate for an hour.

But the only way the FOA candidate could get in the debate is if the party were on the ballot in enough states to get 270 electoral votes. You act like it will be opened up to anyone. That there's only a small handful -- maybe a half dozen? -- of parties who meet that criteria should be instructive to you.

Reading some of the other posts, just requiring that the party be on enough ballots to numerically win the Presidency through the electoral college might do the trick

That was mentioned as the second of the two criteria in the original journal entry.

Also, think of these two arguments: the first is that the people who got their candidate on the ballots (enough to get 270 electoral votes) have a right to have their candidate heard on the public airwaves alongside of the others; and every candidate who qualifies for -- and in many cases accepts -- federal matching funds should be examined throughly by the news media and made available to the citizens in the debates and other venues.

you're right (1)

ceejayoz (567949) | more than 10 years ago | (#8359996)

I agree with most of what you said - the two parties definitely work together to exclude third party candidates. It's dirty and definitely rubs me the wrong way.

I really don't think it will make a difference this time around, and I am unconvinced it made a difference last time around. People assumed the votes Nader got would have gone to Gore, though it's clear that some of the voters would have note voted, and others would have voted instead for other third-party candidates, and we have no idea where those numbers break down.

I've gotta disagree with that, though. I'd say it's a safe bet that 500+ of the 98,000 Nader voters in Florida in 2000 would have voted for Gore, handing him the state and thus the election.

Re:you're right (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 10 years ago | (#8360127)

I'd say it's a safe bet that 500+ of the 98,000 Nader voters in Florida in 2000 would have voted for Gore

I am unconvinced. Nader voters are crazy: who's to say many of them wouldn't have voted for Bush?

Re:you're right (0, Flamebait)

ceejayoz (567949) | more than 10 years ago | (#8361541)

That'd be like Gandhi voters switching to Hitler...

Re:you're right (1)

Jhon (241832) | more than 10 years ago | (#8362400)

This silly comparison of Bush to Hitler needs to stop. It's whacked out.

I voted for Nader in 2000. Had I not voted for Nader, I'm pretty damn sure I would have voted for Bush as Gore wan't an option for me.

The reasons I voted for Nader deal mostly with trying to reach the 5% threshold so that the Green party would receive matching federal campaign funds as they have SOME issues I would like to see debated. Had I had a reasonable expectation that Nader would win, I would not have voted for him. That may sound wacked -- but it's a strategic use of my vote. I also know I'm not the only one.

Bush is no more Hitler than Nader is Gandhi. This is just silly. Stop it.

Re:you're right (1)

buffer-overflowed (588867) | more than 10 years ago | (#8362678)

I think what he was trying to say was that the difference between Nader and Bush is about as big as the difference between Ghandi and Hitler.

Oh and you're absolutely right, Bush doesn't have a mustache, and Nader is farrr to heavy. Oh, you meant politically, not physically didn't you?

Cheers.

Re:you're right (1)

Jhon (241832) | more than 10 years ago | (#8362751)

This hyperbol is silly, wacked, dishonors and does a complete disservice to both Gandhi and those who suffered at Hitler's hands.

You may think it's cute, but it's not.

Re:you're right (2, Insightful)

buffer-overflowed (588867) | more than 10 years ago | (#8363179)

Well, I didn't think the comparison was viable, but you evidentally do if you're going to get all bent out of shape over it.

I corrected your off the wall assertion that what the grandparent was saying in anyway implied that Bush was Hitler or Nader was Ghandi. It didn't, and only a complete nut-job would read that into it, or phrase it into an attack. You drew the comparison into that realm, not the grandparent.

Now, granted my reply was a bit flamey, and I did bait you a bit, but still. Who are you anyway to speak for a huge category of people and as to whether or not it dishonors or would offend them?

That's downright arrogant of you. Especially when no one drew the comparison! I only implied it, and did so, if I may say so myself, in a very silly manner obviously intended to be humorous because on it's face it's PATENTLY ridiculous. It's snarky.

Cheers. No more flames from me.

Re:you're right (1)

Jhon (241832) | more than 10 years ago | (#8363494)

I corrected your off the wall assertion that what the grandparent was saying in anyway implied that Bush was Hitler or Nader was Ghandi. It didn't, and only a complete nut-job would read that into it, or phrase it into an attack. You drew the comparison into that realm, not the grandparent.
It was hardly an "off the wall assertion". The grandparent made the claim that a Nader voter switching to Bush would be like a Gandhi voter switching to Hitler. If that's not a suggesting that (A) Nader equates to Gandhi and (B) Bush equates to Hitler within that analogy, both the original poster and you have a comprehension problem with regards to how analogies work. Further, I correctly identified that the comment was hyperbolic (read my post more carefully) and not completely serious.
That's downright arrogant of you.
As you wish. I've no interest in shaping your opinion of me. However, I'll let the words of Godwin (of Godwin's Law fame) as he said it better than I could:
But the Nazi-comparison meme popped up elsewhere as well - in general discussions of law in misc.legal, for example, or in the EFF conference on the Well. Stone libertarians were ready to label any government regulation as incipient Nazism. And, invariably, the comparisons trivialized the horror of the Holocaust and the social pathology of the Nazis. It was a trivialization I found both illogical (Michael Dukakis as a Nazi? Please!) and offensive (the millions of concentration-camp victims did not die to give some net.blowhard a handy trope).


Re:you're right (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 10 years ago | (#8364225)

Please save any more of this for my Hitler vs. Gandhi thread that doesn't exist. :-)

Re:you're right (2, Insightful)

ceejayoz (567949) | more than 10 years ago | (#8363070)

Apparently, you missed the point of the analogy.

The vast majority of Nader voters are on the far-liberal end of the political spectrum. So, it's very unlikely for any significant number of them to vote for Bush. Sure, there's a couple people like you, but to continue the analogy, there were a couple Jews who supported Hitler. A few examples does not make a trend. :-p

I was no more comparing Bush to Hitler than I was Nader to Gandhi. Your selective reading of the analogy... persecution complex, much?

Re:you're right (1)

Jhon (241832) | more than 10 years ago | (#8363292)

I think you missed the point I was making -- disregarding the hyperbolic hitler/gandhi remarks, while most Nader voters are far left there is no garentee that any number of them would have voted democratic had Nader not run. The reason Nader got the votes he got was due to voters who felt disenfranchised and who in all likelyhood would have either declined to vote or would have voted for someone other than a "D" or an "R". I *AM* an exception and I provided that as futher illustration that what you suggest isn't as strong an arguement as you may think.

And if you think you didn't compare Bush to Hitler and Nader to Gandhi, you need to do some better reading of your comments before you hit that "submit" button. Futher, I addressed both of those issues (Hitler/Bush and votes for Nader== votes for Dems) individually and separately -- so to accuse me of selective reading is way off mark.

Why do people insist (1)

ellem (147712) | more than 10 years ago | (#8360970)

That the Democrats & Republicans are a different party? They say they are different but they're not. Gasp! They are conspiring against opposition? Please.

I voted for Nader... (1)

John Harrison (223649) | more than 10 years ago | (#8361261)

... and I wouldn't have voted for Gore or Bush. If Edwards isn't the nominee I'll vote for Nader again. Of course I was voting in Utah where Perot came in second to beat Clinton twice, so it isn't like my vote would have had any influence in any situation. This time I am voting in MA, where I am unlikely to have influence for an equal but opposite reason.

Nader should keep running until he gets a chance to run AND participate in the debates. Nothing points out the sameness of the two parties more than the fact that neither will engage in a debate with Nader.

It seems reasonable to have several debates leading up to the election and have a progressively higher standard for who gets let in. Say, have five debates, to get into the first one you need 3% support, 6% for the second, up to 15% for the fifth. If you are withing the margin of error you should qualify. That way we could have a real crazy debate or two and give Nader and maybe some others a chance to air their ideas and point out the sameness of the two parties.

Perception of Spain (1)

4lex (648184) | more than 10 years ago | (#8390343)

I know I am wildly offtopic here, but I need some forum of US-inhabitants to answer, and this is the best I found after a little looking in slashdot's journals...:

What is the US perception of politics in Spain [wikipedia.org] ? Here we have got Aznar [wikipedia.org] as president, and everybody talks about how shamefully he is following Bush, how he (Aznar) got us (Spain) in his (Bush's) war... We even copied your bushin30seconds [bushin30seconds.org] with an aznaren30segundos [aznaren30segundos.org]

Do you americans even hear about Aznar and Spain, and spanish politics? I couldn't hardly find a reference whe I looked in michael moore's page [michaelmoore.com] ...

Re:Perception of Spain (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 10 years ago | (#8391009)

I have heard practically nothing about Spain's internal politics, just internationally (particularly in regard to Spain's dealings with NATO, the UN, and the coalition). I would have guessed many people in Spain would be angered by Aznar's working with the US on the Iraq war, but I have no impression for how it breaks down in raw numbers or demographically, let alone in Spain's own government.

As for us "hawks" in the US, we are grateful that your leaders stood by us. Most of the "doves" I know, who have commented on Spain, have essentially dismissed Spain's involvement as being irrelevant (they like to make it look like the US is acting alone, or with the help of only the UK).

Hope that helps.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...