Regular readers will not have required the skills of a textual analysist to have 'sussed out' long ago the fact that I like America. Don't ask me exactly why! Marxists and their ilk will always feel the necessity of endless belly-button-gazing in order to decide why they are Marxist, in general, and this or that brand of Marxist, in particular. Me? I like America mainly, I guess, because when I was a kid growing up in post-war Britain, American films, be they cowboys or musicals or gangsters, showed me a land of colour and plenty and where-in the guy with the white hat always won! Is that pathetic? I don't care, it's the truth. Since then I hope I have become slightly more nuanced, more realistic, even, dare I say, more sophisticated? So, thus armoured I live with "the slings and arrows of outrageous [mis]fortune", or perhaps 'misbehaviour', which occurs there as readily as anywhere else including here. Oh, but brother, do they ever test my loyalty!
I began by admiring the Republican party nomination process in which the candidates underwent tests of fire by debate in the process of which they slowly showed their political strengths and weaknesses. At least, I blathered on, the Great American Public cannot claim that they have not been informed and that was true. But, as so often in American life, they always go too far, for too long and far, far too loud!
The list of candidates has been winnowed down to the last four. Ron Paul is a no-hoper but doesn't care because he is simply content to gain an enormous amount of free publicity into which he can sow his libertarian seeds and hope that they grow in time for his son to reap the harvest later. Santorum is a no-hoper as well and it can only be a matter of time before he drops out when he has cut a suitable deal with whomsoever it is he decides to back. That leaves the last two standing - and that is where the trouble is!
I am not hugely admiring of Mitt Romney although he certainly has many virtues - not the least of which is his proven ability to win in a solidly Democrat state, Massachusetts. As MDA (My Darling Ann) keeps hammering home, the Republicans might love an ideologically pure candidate but 'they ain't gonna get one' so they might as well settle on a candidate who has the best chance of actually beating Obama. Romney is that man because he does not frighten the independents - and they are the ones who will decide the election.
On the other hand, Newt Gingrich would frighten a bull mastiff! Never mind the sophisticated political analysis, the fact is (in American) 'the man has no class', or if you prefer it in English, 'he is not quite a gentleman'. In his desperation to beat Romney he is in the process of pulling down the entire Republican temple. The Dems must be choking with laughter over their breakfast cereal as they watch morning after morning Gingrich hurl one turd after another at Romney's head. Think of the money they will save trying to dig up bad things about the man most likely to face their president.
Much more of this idiocy and I will start to think kind things of the French!
Someone pointed out the other day that Romney has adopted much the most sensible analysis of the current financial crisis of any leading American politician - far better than anything from Gingrich or the Imom Obama.
Posted by: dearieme | Monday, 30 January 2012 at 13:43
MDA hmmm... reckon an Arkie oughter send a letter to Wasilla 'bout taking a moose gun over to the UK?
Wonder how many fawning posts I'd find were I to type MDS into your "Search" - any idea's on that David Ol' Hoss?
Read any Drudge lately? Recall a few posts back my mentioning the Tea Party? How's 'bout all your talk about "authenticity" (tho' I'll admit I ain't seeing much of that anyhere).
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/72096.html
Posted by: JK | Monday, 30 January 2012 at 15:44
Hmmm...
How does David love thee? Let us count the ways...
http://duffandnonsense.typepad.com/.services/blog/6a00d8341c5caf53ef00d8341c5cb353ef/search?filter.q=Sarah+Palin
(Didn't take long to find ... well, nevermind.)
Posted by: JK | Monday, 30 January 2012 at 15:49
"I have been chided firmly by two of my regular commenters, 'JK' and Dom, who disapprove of my love for Sarah!"
"In defending her I must also make clear my reasons for liking and approving of her. ... To begin, I suspect that I am not alone in desperately seeking 'authenticity' in my politicians. Parliament and Congress, it seems to me, are stuffed full of pretenders, and what I mean by 'authenticity'...
http://duffandnonsense.typepad.com/duff_nonsense/2010/02/an-authentic-fake-hope-not.html
(DM? Mind my stealing your, "Tut, bloody, Tut"?)
Posted by: JK | Monday, 30 January 2012 at 16:01
Not in the least, my dear chap.
Posted by: dearieme | Monday, 30 January 2012 at 18:15
Thank you DM - Kind Sir. 'Twas mostly for the ending comment on that thread, "You heard it here first!" forget where JK read it - sounds like maybe some "Expert" on the BBC's staff.
(Imagine - DDS [David's Darling Sarah] with DDA [David's Darling Ann] running on the same ticket.)
Posted by: JK | Monday, 30 January 2012 at 21:51
It's a race between a weirdo and a has-been, and the result doesn't matter because neither of them would beat Obama.
Fasten your seat belts for four more years of socialism in the US.
Hopefully the GOP can do better next time.
Posted by: Andrew Duffin | Tuesday, 31 January 2012 at 12:21
I disagree, Andrew. I think Obama will prove relatively easy to beat unless - and it's a big 'unless' - the economy suddenly improves fairly drastically. Also, I agree with MDA that Romney, tricky bugger though he be, is far and away the man with the best chance of beating Obama. Government Health Warning: my political forecasts are not be relied on and could prove dangerous should you bet the deeds of the house!
Posted by: David Duff | Wednesday, 01 February 2012 at 14:45