The Shotgun Blog
« We're gonna have to invent an award... | Main | Red/Blue »
Thursday, November 04, 2004
Press Review
From today's edition of NORMAN'S SPECTATOR (where the articles are hotlinked).
US papers lead with George Bush’s victory, as do papers in the UK and France.
In a late-breaking development, Yasser Arafat is reported to be unconscious and Palestinian officials are holding an emergency meeting in Ramallah.
Back in the USA, the New York Times’ editorial board expresses its hopes for the second Bush term it and the Boss were hoping against.
Tom Friedman says the election was about which team you were on. Bill Safire, whose team won, reflects on the dangers of lopsided government.
Maureen Dowd is a poor loser. Gary Wills says Bush’s victory spells the end of the Enlightenment.
The Washington Post’s editorial board reflects on the Bush victory. George Will reflects on what it means about America. Jim Hoagland reflects on what it means for foreign policy.
The Los Angeles Times’ editorial board looks at California, a divided country and Bush’s second term.
Max Boot is enthusiastic, Margaret Carlson down. Israeli novelist/dove David Grossman looks at Yasser Arafat.
The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board outlines its hopes for the second term. Peggy Noonan says Kerry’s loss is a big loss for the mainstream media.
At home, the Toronto Star fronts the US election aftermath and a report on yesterday’s testimony at the Gomery Inquiry that’s heavy on Jean Chrétien and buries the bad news for Paul Martin.
Jim Travers says his job has just gotten a hell of a lot harder. Inside, Tom Walkom stares the Bush victory in the face.
Tim Harper reports on what’s ahead in the second term. Sandro Contenta reports on the reaction of European leaders, and Mitch Potter reports from Jerusalem .
The editorial board says Bush’s win will test Canada’s resolve.
Haroon Siddiqui says Kerry would have won had he taken his advice, and he hopes Bush now will see the light. The Star’s other expert on the US, Antonia Zerbisias, watches a lot of television.
The Globe and Mail fronts unionizing clergy, more on the Earnscliffe/Finance relationship and has a great take-off (here and here) on what turned out to be yesterday’s most prescient US election headline in the Canadian press.
Inside, Stephanie Nolen reports from Pretoria. Alan Freeman takes a look at Democratic contenders for 2008.
Jeff Simpson explains why Bush won:
“Canadians overwhelmingly are American northerners in their cultural values and political ideas. But northern ideas, though still potent, don't drive the U.S. any more.
Republicans, with their southern ideas and values, hold a majority in both the House and the Senate and will run the administration. They have a vice-grip on political power in Washington , a set of bedrock cultural and political assumptions about how to organize society, and a fierce determination to keep remaking the U.S. in ways that most Canadians won't like or even understand.”
Margaret Wente wonders what happened to the tight election the media expected, but spares Canadian reporters:
“Don't get me wrong. I think the Christian right is way too strong in America, and I'm afraid that the Bushies will mistake an endorsement of Mr. Bush's values for an endorsement of his policies. But the media and the Democrats would be way better off if they could get to understand (and even appreciate) some of those values from the inside out.
But I won't hold my breath. The National Press Club in Washington and the salons of Manhattan are a whole lot nicer than the diners in Sioux Falls . Those folks whose job is to explain America to the rest of us won't be relocating any time soon.”
John Ibbitson had a chat with the US ambassador who hopes the two countries can now get down to business:
“That agenda involves protecting our homelands from terrorist attack while taking the war to the terrorists. It involves “jump-starting,” as Mr. Cellucci puts it, a fresh round of talks on global free trade, accompanied by further cuts to agricultural subsidies.
It involves, bilaterally, resolving trade irritants, in particular finally and fully reopening the American market to Canadian beef (the defeat of Democrat Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle may help); continuing efforts by both sides to reduce global carbon dioxide emissions (the Americans may not have signed Kyoto, but they are in many ways ahead of us in taking concrete measures); and ratifying Canadian participation in the missile-defence program.
It also involves, the Americans devoutly hope, fast-track approval of the Mackenzie Valley gas pipeline. The United States sees the pipeline as a crucial source of natural gas and (through the use of natural gas to increase oil sands production) oil.”
Lawrence Martin is apoplectic today:
“The world, his election opponents believed, could not withstand four more years of Bible Belt imperialism. Now they've got it. The impressive triumph of the radical right on Tuesday has indeed broken the historical consensus. America has moved outside the box. It is in a new, potentially toxic territory.”
The editorial board is heartened that Bush reached out to Kerry supporters and warns him not to over-interpret his mandate which, in their formulation, sounds suspiciously close to what John Kerry was saying during the campaign.
Another editorialist is dismayed that voters in eleven states rejected same-sex marriage, but heartened that California voters rejected Bush’s values on stem-cell research.
The National Post fronts the US election and the unsafe alternative to the unsafe Vioxx.
Inside, John Weissenberger and George Koch see French billboards and tee off against Ottawa ’s official languages policy. Also in Alberta, Mark Milke says BC—the province he left--should experiment with the proposed new voting system as it’s worth the risk.
Alan Gotlieb wades in with views on a realistic Canadian foreign policy. Here’s a sample:
“Accepting the paramountcy of American power does not require Canada to blindly align itself with the U.S. global strategic vision, whatever it may be. What it does require is acknowledgement that it is unrealistic to pursue a foreign policy devoted to creating counter weights to U.S. influence.
Secondly, we must abandon our vision of ourselves as a "middle-power." The very concept of a middle power is a creature of the Cold War, and is now passe: There is no balance of power in the world to tilt one way or another. European middle powers have, through unification, lost much of their international freedom of action. And Asian powers are primarily focused on regional security.
Thirdly, Canadians should liberate themselves from the belief that the United Nations should be the sole and sacred foundation of our foreign policy. A realistic perspective would make the choice of unilateralism, binationalism or multilateralism a case-specific question of appropriate means to achieve particular ends. The United Nations is not the sole legitimizer of international action.
We should also dispense with moral superiority about our commitment to multilateralism and be honest enough to recognize that when it comes to pursuing our national interest, Canada has a long history of unilateralism.
Fourthly, Canada should accept that it is no more qualified to be a leader in rule-making that other members of the UN. Some may think that as a "moral superpower" with a value-laden foreign policy, we have a special calling to be a "norm entrepreneur." But pursuing this conceit would be a vainglorious enterprise.”
Adam Radwanski says the tobacco war is going too far. Terence Corcoran says the outcome of the US election is great for Canada. And William Watson writes,
“If we wouldn't have made a strategic deal with Mr. Kerry, fine, we shouldn't make such a deal with Mr. Bush. But if we would have dealt with Kerry, why shouldn't we deal with Bush? Because his style still rankles? Because his accent is still Texan? Because he's a conservative Republican? If those are the reasons, the morons are us. We may think of conservative Republicans as an alien species but in fact they are now an apparently permanent feature of American political life. We'd better get used to them.”
The editorial board pans Anne McClellan for her anti-pot zeal, but is pleased with the US election outcome:
“Four out of five Canadians told pollsters they preferred Democratic challenger John Kerry over incumbent Republican President George W. Bush. But Canadians should probably be thankful that Mr. Bush prevailed in Tuesday's election, if only for our own selfish economic interests.”
Elsewhere in CanWest land, the Montréal Gazette and Ottawa Citizen front the US election and the Gomery Inquiry; the Citizen has more bad poop on Nortel.
The Gaz editorial board says George Bush won by a narrow margin and he will be a lame duck; I suppose this makes sense to one or two readers but I’m left to wonder when the new editor takes over.
Their counterparts at the Vancouver Sun say everything is clearer now for Canada. The Citizen editorial board says Pierre Pettigrew is constructing a foreign policy based on fantasy.
Inside, Andrew Cohen writes of the US ,
“things are changing in national politics: The country is becoming more and more conservative. This is the third election in four years the Democrats have lost: The presidency in 2000, mid-term congressional elections in 2002 and now the presidency.
In the Toronto Sun, Peter Worthington explains the election results. From Ottawa, Greg Weston predicts Americans will flee to Canada. I just hope they're the ones with dollars and ideas.
In Edmonton, Neil Waugh says Alberta is bullish on Bush. In Calgary, Rick Bell writes about the provincial campaign.
Posted by Norman Spector on November 4, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d83435222a53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Press Review:
Comments
Someone should show Lawrence Martin the county-based electoral map posted in the article above this one. That's some Bible belt.
Can we take up some kind of collection, to pay for the gigantic wedgies to be surgically removed from the bums of all those mainstream media commentators who are upset about Bush winning? It may be costly up front, but I think that most of you will agree it will make the next four years a lot more bearable.
Posted by: Justzumgai | 2004-11-04 12:36:57 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.