More generally, when pro-US incumbents lost in this election, that was interpreted as anti-US feeling; when anti-US incumbents lost, that was interpreted as anti-incumbent feeling.I just heard NPR describe the election results as "British voters punishing Blair over Iraq", echoing the Washington Post and NY Times. This has become the official line. Any sane editor would choose to lead with a headline grounded in actual factual analysis, such as:
"Three Pro-War British parties take 67% of vote, push anti-war party to fourth place"; or
"New anti-EU party displaces Liberal Democrats as Britain's Third Party"; or
"British Voters Back War but Punish Blair over Europe"; or
"BBC Host Fired for Political Incorrectness Leads Europe Rebels to Victory"; or
"Liberal Democrats Play Anti-War Card with Meager Results; or
"Britain: Only European Country with Pro-War Government *and* opposition party, now sees rise of third pro-war party, eclipsing antiwar party." or
"Euroskeptic Parties Take Majority of Vote for First Time."
It reminds me somehow of Lyndon Johnson's poor showing in the 1968 New Hampshire primary, which the media thought showed voters were opposing the Vietnam War, but, if memory serves me right, was actually voters punishing Johnson for not pushing the war vigorously enough.
[This page is
http://www.rasmusen.org/w/04.06.16d.htm]
To return to Eric Rasmusen's weblog, click http://www.rasmusen.org/w/0.htm.