Yet more American politics - sorry!

Yes, I know, I do bang on about it rather more often than I should but the fact is that American politics, especially in a presidential race, are far more fascinating than our 5-yearly efforts where all we can vote for are our local nonentities.

This forthcoming presidential election entails two elections, so double-bubble for us political anoraks.  The first is the campaign to decide on the Republican candidate and because Obama is 'dead man walking' there is a queue of hopefuls trying desperately to get the chance to take him on.  Should be easy then; 'aye, but there's the rub', because in practice it is already throwing up the horrendous difficulties of choosing the right man - or woman.  In essence, the Republicans, in choosing their candidate must decide whether to follow their hearts or their minds.

At present, and I stress the word deliberately, there are three main contenders.  According to recent polls the late-comer, Gov. Perry of Texas, has leapt into the lead, but this might be due to the blaze of well-orchestrated publicity which accompanied his entrance to the fray.  He strokes the right erogenous zones as far as many Republicans are concerned who swoon at his conservative bravado and the way in which he has allowed Texas to prosper.  But, like his contestants, he comes with baggage, starting with the fact that he began his political life as a Democrat, and even worse, as a Democrat working for Al Gore!  On top of that, is his unrestrained 'Texability', which if it sounds like a cross between ability and dis-ability, is exactly right.  He is not shy of playing the part of an unreconstructed, good ol' Texan boy who believes in the word of the Lord and insists that creation theory should be taught in science classes alongside Dawinism.  This drives them wild with delight down Texas-way but sounds like an old clunker almost anywhere else, but especially amongst the politically neutral, independent voters upon whom all successful candidates for the presidency must rely.  My own shrewd (naturally!) assessment of the man based on watching about 2.3 minutes of him in action in various film clips on Fox, is that he is not quite 16 annas to the rupee!

Knocked off his leading perch is Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts.  I think I can say without too much fear of contradiction that Mitt Romney does not believe in anything too much, or too hard, except probably Mitt Romney!  Even so, he is a successful businessman so at least he understands that part of the economy.  He ran his state tolerably well but then introduced his version of  'Obamacare' long before Obama and by general reckoning it is now nearly broke!  However, he took over the shambles that was then, in 1999, the American effort to stage the Winter Olympics.  He was ruthless in cutting costs, ousting deadbeats, chiseling money from new sponsors and, above all, keeping his own name and face in front of the publicity.  The games, in 2002, were a success despite 9/11 the previous year and, most important of all, they cleared a profit in excess of $100 million.  (I wonder, now that Dave has appointed an American to un-officially run our police forces he might invite Romney over to run our Olympics!)  He is also a Mormon, and just like you, I guess, I only have a hazy idea what they stand for but as all American politicians swear by their various religions when seeking election but then safely ignore them once they get the 'jarb', I don't think it will be a problem.  The most important thing about Romney is that he does not appear to be doctrinaire and that will appeal to the independents who can't wait to boot 'Barry' out but only if the one they boot in seems fairly normal.

On the other hand, the tea party mind-set is looming large in Republican circles.  (Please note that I did not put capital letters in the title 'tea party' because whilst that particular organisation, the Tea Party, is fairly large and influential, it only represents, I think, the tip of a mighty iceberg beneath the surface of the GOP.  This is why Ms. Bachmann and Ms. Palin, when she enters (and she will, oh yes, she definitely will!), cannot be dismissed too quickly.  Ms.Bachmann suffers from never having run anything, a weakness of which most members of Congress suffer when they try for the presidency.  Ms. Palin, by contrast, has run Alaska and in doing so smashed the grubby, corrupt hands of her own party bigwigs who had run that State as a personal franchise for decades.  In other words, Ms. Palin has a victory to her name.  Many writers, much more experienced and knowledgeable than I, would have us believe that neither of these ladies could stand the scorching they would receive from the MSM.  Ms. Palin has already suffered enough, they say - although I doubt she would agree with them!  Again, my view from a distance is that both ladies are more than tough enough and anyway, the American MSM, much like ours, is a devalued currency.  No-one trusts it or believes in it anymore.  In fact, so vile are the attacks they mount that they might well provide the abused candidates with a hefty sympathy vote.

As one of the writers I link to below reminds us, it is only August 2011 and the whole history of candidate selection is littered with husks of empty politicians who began as the leaders of the pack but fell by the wayside.  So, sit back and enjoy  . . .

These articles are worth a read:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903480904576507933332443602.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/08/18/a-big-black-cloud

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/08/18/skeptical-of-perry/

 

Comments

[Andra]

Nixon was a Mormon.
There may not be a connection but it is something to keep in mind.

[dearieme]

Nixon was a Quaker, not a Mormon.

[JK]

David, David, David. Golly David!

I can understand your reliance on those fine publications - but as you note - it will be the Independents who'll decide the 2012 bloodletting. Much as I'd prefer a change in the Oval Office - somehow I doubt it will occur. But I think it's possible, if not entirely probable, the Republicans will likely win the Senate adding to their current hold in the House.

What I'd prefer actually is both the Senate and House to be dominated with Republicans (I generally prefer divided government which would necessarily mean Obama wins re-election, the House retaining a majority but the Senate not enjoying a clearly veto-proof majority. Something akin to the last years of the Clinton Administration. Keep in mind, a President cannot make legislation.

Hence this link (slow to load even here):

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/

[Andra]

DM: I stand corrected. I knew it was something unhealthy.

[David Duff]

Which all goes to support my contention that which ever religion politicians espouse it has virtually no effect on their conduct!

[Kevin B]

I think the need for America to get rid of Obama grows with each executive order or administrative ukase the current administration imposes.

Congress wouldn't pass cap and Trade, even when the Dems had majorities in both houses, so the EPA uses the Clean Air act to impose it anyway. Too many states have right to work laws so the NRLB imposes union closed shops on employers. Congress wouldn't pass the Dream act, again even when Dems controlled both houses, so Obama stops the authorities from deporting illegal aliens who haven't committed a crime. (Err, slight contradiction there O old chap.)

There are many more examples of this administration flouting the rule of law and becoming an Imperial Presidency. Rebuplican control of both houses will somewhat curb the excesses but I don't trust career politicians to put a stop to it completely when they can be bought off with earmarks.

No, a strong conservative administration in Washington is neccessary to at least halt the rise of the federal juggernaut, if not begin to reverse the momentum.

And why should a Brit worry about this? Surely our energies should be focused on smashing Brussels' power rather than Washington's? Well just for starters, without a strong US economy, our economy is stuffed anyway and without a strong example from the US, Europe will, I fear, once again go the totalitarian route.

So keep a close eye on American politics and let's do our tiny bit to ensure that a real conservative wins.

[dearieme]

I suspect it's far too late to worry about which representative of the plutocrats becomes the new Impostor-in-Chief. When the first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, had obviously failed, the politicians adopted the US Constitution. (You might then call the country, in the French style, The Second Republic.) When it failed even more undeniably - the Civil War - under Lincoln the US was centralised even more substantially: let us call that the Third Republic. Under FDR not only was the Constitution substantially violated, but the country was further centralised - call that the Fourth Republic. After WWII, with the rest of the world on its knees the US grew to become an empire, which further expanded after victory in the Cold War. Call it the Fifth Republic if you like, though "Empire" might be more fitting. But now it's failing too. No doubt lip-service will be paid to the Constitution: Augustus paid lip-service to The Roman Republic, did he not?

[David Duff]

You are entirely right, Kevin, in insisting that a true conservative is needed to turn back the tide of socialism which has engulfed the USA. That is why, although I recognise the aversion of some Americans to anyone too doctrinaire and therefore the difficulty facing such a candidate, nevertheless, I think they will stand a chance because the feeling of ABO (Anyone But Obama) must be fairly enormous by now and will grow over the next few months when yet more smelly stuff hits the fan.

Also, it is going to need an ideologue with passionate intensity to drive through against the howls of opposition - remember 'that woman' and what she faced. If JK, above, is right and the GOP can win both houses then America is in with chances. But, put a middle-of-the-road wuss in there and the Democrats will run rings round him or her. I understand JK's fears about too much power but NOW is the time when such power is not just needed but is critical for the health of the Republic - whichever Republic it is, according to DM.

And talking of passionate ideologues, that is why I continue to favour Palin and I don't care if she doesn't know Turkestan from Pakistan, other people can take care of that sort of thing, all she needs to do is concentrate on getting Congress to ram through what it takes to set the American economy free again. Everything else will flow, or not, depending on her success, or failure, there. Hopefully in eight years she will be able to hand over a rich , thriving (and therefore powerful) America to her successor.

(Sorry for any typos - in a hurry.)

[Andra]

Hmm.
Ukase: new word for me.
In czarist Russia an edict or order of the czar having the force of law.

You know, somebody was complaining to me a couple of years ago about America being such a super power (well, they were then) and trying to organise the world.
I said, "If not America, then who?"
It's a good question.

[David Duff]

It certainly is, Andra, and I wish a few more people would ask it!

[dearieme]

Why need it be anyone?

[David Duff]

Don't be silly, DM, you know perfectly well why. 'Nature abhors a vacuum' and all that sort of thing. If not America, then China - which would you prefer?

[Andra]

Exactly.

In Australia we are a large empty country of about 23 million people, with 12,000 km. of pretty much deserted coastline.

We feel a little bit safer knowing America is our ally and will, we expect, come to our assistance if we need it. We figure if we do our bit and send our boys to Iraq and Afghanistan, etc. the USA owes us and will reciprocate if required.

Some years ago a Chinese boat sailed right down the coast of Queensland and into Cairns, a city of 150,000 people. They anchored the boat off a popular beach right next to the Cairns airport and about 40 Chinese men dressed in suits and carrying briefcases came ashore and asked directions to the nearest railway station.

I think it was the suits that gave them away. Unless you're a lawyer going to court today, nobody wears suits here.

The point is this boat eluded navy patrol vessels, coast guard, general shipping, planes, etc. and sounded no alarms on anybody's radar.

Had there been a railway station nearby they could have spread out to the whole country.

We are vulnerable and I sleep safer in my bed at night knowing someone in America is watching me, as it were.

[David Duff]

"knowing America is our ally and will, we expect, come to our assistance if we need it"

I wouldn't bank on that if I were you, Andra. By and large nations only go to war when their own national interests are severely threatened. You will remember of course, that America did not voluntarily join Britain in either WWI or WWII, they only came in when they were directly attacked.