"Global Test"

[Snide]

I've been meaning to bring this up, so sorry if it's not timely. But I htink it might be, considering how Bush and others seem to have harped on this so much.

When Kerry used the term "Global Test," I took it as in the context of how I'd seen the word "test" used in my case readings in law school. For example, there is a "test" for simple negligence, promisory estoppel, etc. All it means in this light is that there are a few questions to ask before applying the doctrine. It seemed like a reasonable position for Kerry to hold.

Do that many people really buy into the idea that Kerry meant it to mean anything else, like actually having to ask every country's permission?

I'm curious what the law students/attorneys on this board think of this...and others, of course.

I fear this "global test" issue will someday be ranked up there with Willie Horton, "Are you better off now?," etc....

 

[Chaos]

I think people buy it because they want to buy it. They already hate Kerry and automatically interpret everything he says and does in the most negative way they can.

Not that others don´t do that with Bush, of course...

BTW, I read it as "treating your allies like people who, once in a while, might be right when you are wrong, and whose ideas you listen to and compare which sound more workable - yours or theirs."
That´s not such a nice sound-bite as the Bushie spin, but I guess you can´t have everything...

 

[Dorian Gray]

I think people buy it because they want to buy it. They already hate Kerry and automatically interpret everything he says and does in the most negative way they can.

I disagree. I think the Bush campaign does that and the "people" blindly and sheepishly follow.

 

[DavidJames]

Do that many people really buy into the idea that Kerry meant it to mean anything else, like actually having to ask every country's permission?

I'm not a "law students/attorneys" but I did see a Holiday Inn Express commercial last night

I'll admit, when taken out of context and viewed through Republican glasses, it can be viewed as "asking permission". But reasonable people would not do that. Having said that, I am not surprised that many on this board have taken it exactly that way.

 

[Matabiri]

I interpreted "global" to mean "holistic", as well, rather than "involving other countries".

Also the full quote

But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do it in a way that passes the, the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people, understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

uses the past tense "that you did it" - that is, you have to be sure that the evidence will convince people before you act, not that you actually have to convince them first.

Incidentally, you can take the Global Test here.

 

[Snide]

Also the full quote uses the past tense "that you did it" - that is, you have to be sure that the evidence will convince people before you act, not that you actually have to convince them first.

Excellent point. That so many of the Bushies jumped on it (have you seen the Daily Show bit on it?), makes me concerned that it will be swallowed hook, line and sinker and be a determining factor in enough voters to be a difference maker.

I find it funny how it was jumped on so heavily by Bush in his stumps, even though his first reaction in the debate was:

I'm not exactly sure what you mean: passes the global test. You take pre-emptive action if you pass a global test? My attitude is you take pre-emptive action in order to protect the American people. That you act in order to make this country secure.

So Bush didn't understand, so he folowed up with a couple strawmen. Then the next day he seemed to understand it enough to change the context and slam Kerry for it.

 

[Atlas]

I think the word to focus on is GLOBAL. The knock is that Kerry is not an America First guy. He's a Kyoto guy, a UN guy, a guy who won't do anything without Europe's ok. He didn't say anything bad but because he use the word global the president took a swipe at him.

Here is how Kerry clarified his own statement after the fact...

<blockquote>Kerry said he intends to be a president who understands "that America is stronger when we are leading global alliances and when we are leading the world, and that's how we are going to do it. And that's what I meant."

Here is what Kerry said during the debate:

"No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded -- and nor would I -- the right to preempt in any way necessary, to protect the United States of America," the Democrat told moderator Jim Lehrer during the debate.

"But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do it in a way that passes the, the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people, understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

</blockquote>

 

[billydkid]

I've been meaning to bring this up, so sorry if it's not timely. But I htink it might be, considering how Bush and others seem to have harped on this so much.

When Kerry used the term "Global Test," I took it as in the context of how I'd seen the word "test" used in my case readings in law school. For example, there is a "test" for simple negligence, promisory estoppel, etc. All it means in this light is that there are a few questions to ask before applying the doctrine. It seemed like a reasonable position for Kerry to hold.

Do that many people really buy into the idea that Kerry meant it to mean anything else, like actually having to ask every country's permission?

I'm curious what the law students/attorneys on this board think of this...and others, of course.

I fear this "global test" issue will someday be ranked up there with Willie Horton, "Are you better off now?," etc....

I took it to mean - what are world wide implications of a particular action in as much as those implications impact the US? But I knew the instant he said it it was a mistake and the Reps would pounce all over it and distort its meaning.

 

[Snide]

I think the word to focus on is GLOBAL. The knock is that Kerry is not an America First guy. He's a Kyoto guy, a UN guy, a guy who won't do anything without Europe's ok. He didn't say anything bad but because he use the word global the president took a swipe at him.

I think that's what's happening, but shouldn't. The word "Global" doesn't bother me as an adjective, as long as the noun seems reasonable. "Global permission," or "Global approval" would be different. That's why I think the correct word to focus on is "test."

 

[DavidJames]

Re: Re: "Global Test"

But I knew the instant he said it it was a mistake and the Reps would pounce all over it and distort its meaning.

Yup, I cringed when I heard it and expected that fallout as well.

 

[Brown]

Kerry's proposal was hardly a new one. It actually has a long American tradition.

In the Declaration of Independence, one of the stated purposes of the Declaration is to explain the colonists' actions to the world:

...a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
...
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved....

The Declaration arguably had no legal effect, and from a strictly legal standpoint, the colonists' actions could be seen as treasonous. One of the purposes of the Declaration was to explain "why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons," as Kerry said.

The Emancipation Proclamation arguably had no legal effect within the United States. But it did have an effect internationally. It explained to the world why the Union was doing what it was doing, and it deterred other nations from allying with the South.

In the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy's address to the nation was largely an explanation as to why he was doing what he was doing, and a showing of legitimate reasons. Kennedy made this announcement because was committing an act of war, and he wanted the world to know why. It worked; the Soviets backed down.

In none of these instances did the United States seek anyone's permission to do anything.

Anyone who suggests that Kerry's proposal is some sort of radical departure clearly doesn't know very much about American history.

 

[Atlas]

I think that's what's happening, but shouldn't. The word "Global" doesn't bother me as an adjective, as long as the noun seems reasonable. "Global permission," or "Global approval" would be different. That's why I think the correct word to focus on is "test."

Global permission would have been the worst formulation. Many Americans felt the UN was acting meekly when it should have been acting strongly. It had unanimously authorized the threat of "Serious repercussions". Then it would not keep the pressure on even though all indications were that Saddam was up to his old tricks and was not giving the inspectors the necessary unfettered access (eg minders for all scientist interrogations.) By the time of the debates the oil for food scandal had shown the security council members had been corrupted by Saddam. And when people hear "global" in political terms it means UN.

The word hung in the air like poison gas.

 

[Snide]

Global permission would have been the worst formulation. Many Americans felt the UN was acting meekly when it should have been acting strongly. It had unanimously authorized the threat of "Serious repercussions". Then it would not keep the pressure on even though all indications were that Saddam was up to his old tricks and was not giving the inspectors the necessary unfettered access (eg minders for all scientist interrogations.) By the time of the debates the oil for food scandal had shown the security council members had been corrupted by Saddam. And when people hear "global" in political terms it means UN.

The word hung in the air like poison gas.

I tend to agree. And to be clear, I meant "worse" when I said "different."

 

[Atlas]

...The Emancipation Proclamation arguably had no legal effect within the United States. But it did have an effect internationally. It explained to the world why the Union was doing what it was doing, and it deterred other nations from allying with the South.

I generally do like your take on treaties and other legal issues (with the exception of Florida election 2000 cuz I just know you're wrong there but I don't know why ) But I had never heard this angle on the Emancipation Proclamation. Thanks.

On an unrelated point - Alan Page -

 

[Snide]

On an unrelated point - Alan Page -

This comment went over this Minnesotan and Vikings fan's head...what does it mean? I must know!

 

[Brown]

This comment went over this Minnesotan and Vikings fan's head...what does it mean? I must know!

Alan Page is a justice on the Minnesota Supreme Court, and has earned an excellent reputation. He is being challenged this year by Tom Tinglestad, who is promising to "prayerfully seek God's wisdom" in every decision.

I urge Minnesotans to vote to keep Page. His thoughtful record warrants his retention.

 

[Rob Lister]

I just read the whole thread. It was interesting.

How did Team Bush spin Kerry's Global Test message to their advantage? Why couldn't Team Kerry spin it to their own?

What events and headlines directly preceeded the message? What impact did they have on Team Bush's ability to spin it? Should that have been taken into account by Team Kerry before using it?

How do midwesterners and southerners, many of whom view even the federal government as forigners, receive such a message? Kerry's base would receive the message well -- that's obvious -- but was Kerry's base the people to whom he should have been delivering the message?

 

[Snide]

Alan Page is a justice on the Minnesota Supreme Court, and has earned an excellent reputation. He is being challenged this year by Tom Tinglestad, who is promising to "prayerfully seek God's wisdom" in every decision.

I urge Minnesotans to vote to keep Page. His thoughtful record warrants his retention.

I'm embarrassed I missed that. I have only noticed that he (Tinglestad) is running. I got to see Page in action last year at school when the Minnesota Supreme Court agreed to hear two cases' opening arguments there. I was quite impressed with what he had to contribute to the mix.

 

[DavidJames]

IHow did Team Bush spin Kerry's Global Test message to their advantage? Why couldn't Team Kerry spin it to their own?

To me spin means to twist and distort something to suit your own meaning. Therefore since it was Kerry's words, the only spin would come from those who wanted to twist and distort. Which is what we got from Bush and friends. Kerry made a mistake in using the word "test". He explained what it meant but that doesn't matter since the "spinners" simply grab on the word and apply their own meaning.

 

[Rob Lister]

To me spin means to twist and distort something to suit your own meaning. Therefore since it was Kerry's words, the only spin would come from those who wanted to twist and distort. Which is what we got from Bush and friends. Kerry made a mistake in using the word "test". He explained what it meant but that doesn't matter since the "spinners" simply grab on the word and apply their own meaning.

Should Team Kerry have taken that into account beforehand? It isn't as if they don't spin as well. Surely they know the game?