Nov 2, the Us presendential elections. Over the last few days the media has been ablaze with news about out how Bush and Kerry are tied in the race. Infact this election saw candidates fighting it out on the last day breaking the old traditions.
Another election joke goes that when asked to mention his three mistakes , Bush's answer was..Last Debate, this debate and the next debate. :P
The London based Economist has picked up Kerry over Bush. The Economist tries to do an fair analysis of candidates. Afganisatan thus is as a sucess for America & Bush. Though Osama was not captured, all Taliban training camps were destroyed. And now we have had successful elections there. Even Iraq according to them is not a mistake ( Probably a result of -" The coalition of the Willing" being supported by UK). However according to economist whats wrong was the way the aftermath of Iraq war was handled. The treatment given to POW and also the American treatment of Israel-Palestine issue. Infact a friend of mine working in America prefers Bush because - 'He has leant the ropes' , a euphemism for ' he has made all the mistakes he could'.
Kerry's vacilating records on foreign policy, Iraq war and his protectionist attitude & fiscal policy preferences against deficit are his problems. However in the end the paper decides for Kerry without any convincing arguments except stating that Bush has refused to learn from his mistakes. Infact to my surprise they approve Kerry because
...his plan for the next phase in Iraq is identical to Mr Bush's, which speaks well of his judgment. He has been forthright about the need to win in Iraq, rather than simply to get out . I could not understand why the paper believes that Kerry will definitely approach the palestine issue in different way.
The full article is here
Which brings me to my conclusion. A Duke university proff today said that the choice in US elections was about Bush/No bush rather than Bush/Kerry. All over the world outside USA atleast people seem to be deciding whether Bush is should be the next president or not. Thats wat the BBC correspondents in different countries concluded. And that is the way ecomomist seems to have decided - No Bush an therefore a Kerry
Am not a great bush supporter and the first paragraph of the economist story probbaly sums it all for me..
This year's battle has been between two deeply flawed men: George Bush, who has been a radical, transforming president but who has never seemed truly up to the job, let alone his own ambitions for it; and John Kerry, who often seems to have made up his mind conclusively about something only once, and that was 30 years ago