Whatsthatsmell?

What a butthead...Delayed reaction...

I watched the Daily Show last Friday on More4.  They usually show it here in the UK a couple of days after showing it in the States. 

Most of the time, I completely disagree with the editorial slant taken by the Daily Show, but I still find it extremely funny.  Jon Stewart, the host, is a funny guy, and his delivery is tops, and most of the stuff he pokes fun at is fair game, and can often have me laughing hysterically, despite his mostly ripping into "my side".

Since the announcement of Sarah Palin as Vice Presidential candidate, however, it just hasn't been funny.  I am open-minded enough to appreciate good comedy even when it "offends" one's beliefs and sensibilities.  But most of the shows since the day after the Democratic Convention have been nothing but angry, ugly, sneering, elitist ranting.  The Manhattan bien pensants ripping into someone from Middle America because she isn't like one of them, is the impression I get.  The underlying implication being that as she is from outside their rarefied world then she must be ignorant and not as worldly as the clever clogs that are writing the material on the show.

Well, Friday night's interview with Tony Blair showed just how knowledgeable and worldly Jon Stewart is when no one is writing his lines.  Within the space of five minutes, he made, in my eyes, two of the stupidest "ignorant" American mistakes about geography and history.

First, when Tony Blair explained that he was now teaching at Yale, Stewart asks, "So, do you prefer getting paid in Dollars or Euros?"  Blair politely informed him he prefers British Pounds.

Later, when Blair explained that no two democracies had ever gone to war, Stewart, with a clever smarmy tone, asked "Aren't Britain and Argentina democracies?"

Blair pretended not to hear it, yet Stewart pressed on.  Blair had to inform Stewart that at the time of the Falklands War, Argentina was a dictatorship.

You know, I don't mind people being slightly ignorant of these things, in the grand scheme of American life and culture, these things don't matter.  What I do take issue with is people like Stewart pretending they are more clever than they actually are and making unfounded assumptions about other people's levels of ignorance on the basis of ideology and calling it comedy.

What a tosser.

Actually, that is the problem with many on the Left (I should know, too, I used to be one).  They assume that they are smarter than EVERYONE on the other side of the aisle.  They use smarmy tones to talk down to people they don't agree with, and then they can't figure out why they lose elections.  We're in store for another four years of liberal bleating about stolen elections.

The economy's tanking, George Bush is low in approval ratings, the Republicans are on the backfoot in Congress, the Iraq War is not particularly popular as a political issue, and 80% of the population think the country is going in the wrong direction.

And Obama is only leading by a few percentage points in the polls?  At this point, he should be 15-20 points ahead of McCain.  Who's clever now?

McCain-Palin...Wow!

I have to say, I was going with McCain mostly because he was the last bastion against the farthest left presidential candidate ever to run.

I was a Romney guy during the primaries.  And Romney really appealed to my intellect.  He was the smartest guy running for President, but not the best politician in the fray.

The selection of Sarah Palin confirms just how accomplished a politician McCain is.  In selecting Palin, McCain has attracted a lot of people who wouldn't even give him a look in.  Sarah Palin plays well to a lot of people.  For us normal everyday people, Sarah reminds us of a librarian-hot version of all those steely women we know in our lives as mothers, wives, sisters, and aunts.  The sort of women we meet every day, who happen to rise to the occasion when called upon.  The sort of woman who meets the slings and arrows that life throws up in her way, keeps taking it, and then continues to say: Bring it on.

I have to say, watching her speak and come out swinging, I was overwhelmed with emotion, and choked down that lump in my throat.  It reminded me of how great America is that nomal every day people like her choose to go into politics.

I also had a similar response to McCain's acceptance speech last night.  I can't help but keep thinking that the real change people are waiting for is a change wherein politicians have a core belief system and act upon it.  I now have no doubt that McCain, as much as I have disagreed with him at times, works from that core that says that America is the greatest country in the world, and that every political move he makes is less about McCain and more about America.

I think we are seeing the beginning of the end of Obama.

Genuinely excited...

What a perfect pick for a Vice Presidential candidate: Sarah Palin.

Hugh Hewitt summed it up beautifully:

When the Dems come after Palin for inexperience in foreign affairs, the reply will be obvious --the GOP vice-presidential nominee is as experienced as the Democratic presidential nominee but also has executive decision-making that Obama lacks.  

Palin's  tough stance on reform of long corrupt practices is going to give her a very clear advantage over practiced cronyists Obama and Biden.

And she knows the crucial energy issue very, very well, as well as a variety of land-use and property rights issues dear to many in the crucial mountain west.

I have to say, I am genuinely excited about this.  A real coup for McCain.

Okay, I'm supporting McCain Now

Despite my previously enumerated issues with McCain, his speech this past week on economic issues and his economic platform has won me over. 

Especially after hearing how Obama and Clinton would automatically seek to raise taxes all around, in the interest of "Fairness", in the debate immediately following McCain's speech.

I think, when it comes to taxation and fiscal policy, McCain knows what's good for America and, subsequently, the rest of the world.

Thank God there is an America, where people who call themselves "conservatives" really are conservatives.  At least the Right in America has not ceded the argument to the Left like they have here in the UK.

I have pretty much given up on Conservative politics here in the UK.  The debate has been framed by the socialists, and I don't see any return from the brink unless there is a coup within the Conservative Party by a charismatic leader.  It strikes me that any "conservative" policies the Conservatives adopt tend to be out of potential vote-winning instead of conviction.  They aren't very convincing, the wets that are in charge right now.

Which is why I am glad that there are countries in the world where the socialists are losing the argument.  Like France, Germany, and the US.

So in front of my meager audience, I am announcing my support for McCain.  I may not agree with him 100%, but 80% is good enough for me.

(For those of you who wonder, I am both a British subject and a US citizen.)

Too clever by half...

Just read David "Bloody" Cameron's speech on the economy...

He criticised the Labour Party tax regime without actually saying he would lower taxes.  Oh, he said he would "simplify" Corporation Tax.  Whatever that means.

He managed to say a lot of nothing in that speech, actually.  One was reminded of so many other "third way" speeches by another politician who was not much on substance...

The only reason I will vote Conservative now will be on the merit of the candidates and not because of the party; Cameron is just as useless as Blair and it is really easy to see that there is no other principle at work other than the will to be Prime Minister.

Went down to see the MP in Westminster...

The other day.  We had a great chat on politics and all the issues I brought up in my series of e-mails to him regarding taxpayer-funding of political parties. (Throughout December of last year.)

The long and short of it is that, despite the suggestions for taxpayer funding, the Conservative Party did come up with some eminently sensible suggestions the other day. 

Our conversation ranged over most of the topics I brought up.  Particularly on the EU.  His thoughts are that the parliamentary party is more Euroskeptic than ever, including himself.

It gave me pause for thought on the Conservative Party, and even on David Cameron.  Who is an operator, if nothing else.  He's good at politics.  And in fairness, it is true, for the first time in a long time, Cameron's presentation does smooth the way for the introduction of small-c conservative ideas without getting skewered every time.  There are some solid policies and research coming out from the Conservatives which are beginning to look more and more conservative.

Who knows, maybe I'll come back...Depends what this lot get up to...

Iowa Caucuses Tomorrow - My Prediction

(and also my hope) Romney beats Huckabee.

I've been a Romney fan since I read this book last spring.  I already submitted my Georgia absentee ballot for him in the primary.

Romney may not be as ideologically pure as some of the other candidates, and if I would go on voting records alone, McCain would be my man.  Unfortunately, McCain chooses the wrong issues to be bi-partisan on, such as judicial nominees, campaign finance reform, and immigration.  (Doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for him if given a choice between him and any Democratic candidate in a general election.)

Romney has demonstrated in the past that he is someone whose success is based upon laying out a plan and sticking to it.  He rescued the Salt Lake City Olympics from the red and brought it into the black.  He built up and ran the venture capital firm, Bain Capital, which earned him his reputed $1 Billion fortune.  He's proven he can get elected to executive power in liberal states (which might actually make him, rather than Obama, a better candidate for "uniting" people).  And plus, he looks like a president straight out of central casting.

He is incredibly smart, and when he comes up against something he's never encountered before, he gathers all the top specialists of all persuasions and from all points on the ideological continuum to give him the lowdown from their perspective.

For the most part, the British press have been ignoring him, either because they are so enthralled to the Democratic front-runners and Rudy Giuliani, or because they'd rather not think about another potential Republican president.

Romney's detractors say his record is not conservative enough and that he flip-flops.  So what.   Most of the candidates have hove to the right.  And unlike any of the others, if you are speaking from a "socially" conservative standpoint, I believe he is the only one who has been married to the same woman for most of his life.  So at least he lives these values (and if the Kennedy machine couldn't find any personal dirt on him when he ran for Senator against Teddy in Mass back in 1994, I'd wager there isn't any to be found) even if he may not have voted them as governor of an ultraliberal state.

He is the first candidate I heard (way back in Spring) speak openly and loudly of the Islamofascist threat.  He and Rudy are probably the only candidates running for president who have read all the right books on it, too, such as America Alone and Looming Tower.

Speaking of which, this is why I will be voting Republican, no matter what, in a general election: not a single Democratic candidate has mentioned the Islamist threat at all, not a one.   All the Republicans, except Ron Paul,  have named it specifically.

Anyway, because he doesn't enjoy a national reputation like Rudy or McCain or Thompson, Romney needs to win Iowa and then New Hampshire.  If he wins these two states, he will garner enough attention, and money, as a candidate.  Otherwise, he's up against Rudy in Florida (home to loads of transplanted New Yorkers) and Thompson in South Carolina.

But if he wins Iowa tomorrow, I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that he will be the next president of the US.

Public Funding of Political Parties, Part 4

As the MP has still not responded to my previous e-mail, and as I've had more time to think about it, and get riled up, I decided to write another one to him.  Just sent the following to him:

Dear Mr. Loughton,
I am disappointed to see you have not yet acknowledged any of the points I brought up in my last e-mail.  I hope it is due to being too busy, and not because you dismiss them outright.

I've also been thinking more about your initial response to me and I have a few questions myself, particularly as the Fleet Street/BBC/Westminster consensus won't ask them...

What "problem" are the parties seeking to address in seeking taxpayer funding for their operations?

What is to stop corruption and influence from other sources? 

What benefit does taxpayer funding of political parties bring to the taxpayer?

What benefits do the main political parties' continued existence bring to the taxpayer that there is sufficient justification to take money from us to maintain?  If it is self-evident, as your initial response to me seems to imply, I am missing the point altogether.  Perhaps I am a bit slow. 

I seem to recall hearing prior to the leadership election that Cameron's lot were willing to lose 25% of the Conservative grassroots in order to re-brand the Conservatives (they certainly lost me).  Why should the Conservative Party not live with the membership implications of the decision to publicly abandon core conservative principles in the same way that Labour should learn to live with the decision to abandon Clause IV?

Why wouldn't a parliamentary act supporting taxpayer funding of political parties look like collusion between the three "mainstream" parties?

Is Britain a better place for the quality of its political class over the past two decades?

In what ways, outside of the key marginals, are any MPs democratically accountable?  For instance, if you - or your party - were to vote on key issues against the wishes of a majority of your constituency, what is the chance of you or a member of your party (and hundreds of your parliamentary colleagues in similar relatively safe seats) not re-taking your seat in the next general election?  Would taxpayer-funding make parties more democratically accountable? 

Why shouldn't the parties choose to live within their current means?

If there is taxpayer funding of political parties based upon the Philips formula, what's the next step?  It strikes me that this will succeed in alienating even more people from the voting booth, making the potential pool of voters shrink.  Will Parliament just vote to increase the per-voter payment available under the Philips formula?

Is the current lead in opinion polls that the Conservatives enjoy due to the intrinsic qualities of the Conservative Party and Conservative Party policy? Or is it more due to the same type of factors that brought about the 1997 Labour landslide?

I know many of the points I put in my previous missive are the equivalent of asking turkeys to vote for Christmas, but I put it to you that the gutsy leadership it takes to vote for Christmas is the sort of thing that would energise a detached electorate.  It is exactly what made the Congressional Republicans in the US a majority throughout the 90s and up until recently; with the Contract for America they stated that they would, in fact, vote for Christmas, and if they ceased doing so, the electorate had every right to vote them out.  And it is this principle that has energised the conservative grassroots enough in the US to not only stump up the money to fund the Republican Party, but also to finance literally thousands of local, state, and federal political campaigns and movements.

And if the Conservative Party adopts the concept of taxpayer funding as one of its own policies, it will only go to confirm my growing suspicion that parliamentary democracy, at least here in the UK, is more akin to having the right to vote for the organised crime family that gets control of the protection rackets, rather than about bringing change and improvement to people's lives. 

As a reasonable person, I am, of course, open to persuasion otherwise (and have been known to make 180 degree changes in fundamental positions with enough evidence, and have contributed financially to my new positions).  However, if someone wants my money, they should sell me their product, not arrange a vote to force me to buy it.

I await your response, as I raise some valid and reasonable questions.

Regards,
James G

How to Be Right

Yesterday was my birthday and the wife bought me the book How to Be RIght: The Essential Guide to Making Lefy Liberals History by James Delingpole

It is an amusing glossary of all that is wrong with the UK and the world.  Very funny.  One definition that jumped out at me last night as I was reading, really hit home (as I used to be just like this):

The A-word

aDM made a comment regarding the orientation of feminine/feminist politics in the USand related it back to the abortion issue and “choice”.

And I have been thinking a lot about “choice” and “life” and pondering my current stand which is 180 degrees away from the way I used to feel about it.

In the US, the evangelicals are threatening to start a third party if Rudy Giuliani becomes the Republican nominee because he is personally pro-choice. As much as I agree with the pro-life position, I believe this move is a fundamental mistake.