Whatsthatsmell?

Sent to the Newsnight Editorial staff...

I am writing regarding the Jerome Corsi interview the other night. 

I was extremely disappointed by the refutations of Corsi's assertions.  Your only source for the refutations seemed to be the Obama campaign's own poorly constructed 50-page tome which was economical (to say the least) with the truth in many places.

When that didn't seem to refute Corsi's assertions effectively, Ms. Wark reverted to ad hominem attacks on Corsi.  I am not a fan of Corsi's at all; in fact I understand him to be a conspiracy nut and an anti-Catholic bigot. 

However, there is a very good reason the mainstream American press is going nowhere near his book or the book by David Freddoso: they are afraid of what they will find under those rocks when they do something as simple as a Lexis-Nexis search on local Chicago newspapers -   something that anyone who claims the mantle of journalist should know how to do.  A secondary school teacher would have failed an expository essay which used only the candidate's word as a refutation.

If serious allegations of corruption were levelled against a British politician, I am certain that you would have done more research than taking the politician's word for it.  Your interview and treatment of Corsi betrayed nothing but shear partisanship and a lack of journalistic integrity in covering the American elections.  I've come to expect this from the rest of the "serious" British press (with the notable exception of the Times' editorial page), but for some reason, I was expecting more from Newsnight.

Obama is not an agent of change and, instead, comes from two of the most unpalatable persuasions of American political life: Chicago machine politics and '60s radical chic.  And a cursory inspection of those people with whom he associated on his rise would throw up some serious questions about his integrity, particularly when he claims to be a uniter.

I am warning you now, please do not be upset, like the rest of the press pack was in 2000 and 2004, when those rednecks in America vote for the "wrong" person in November.  There has been very little scrutiny of Obama, his past, and his record, and the next couple of weeks will throw up a lot of mud that will probably stick to him.

Regards,
James G-

Paris Hilton Responds to the Presidential Race

I might begin to reconsider who I'm voting for in November (just kiddin...) (h/t to the uncle)

See more Paris Hilton videos at Funny or Die

That Obama Speech...

Watching the coverage of it here in the UK, I have a feeling that the British press is going to go through the same paroxysms of denial that it went through in 2000 and 2004 when it turns out those redneck ignoramuses in the US don't vote for Barry come November.

This one guy who isn't even the head of state, acts as the presumptive president-elect and promises the world everything in the most arrogant of tones (particularly to these redneck American ears).  If, for instance, Tony Blair, as elected head of government, made anywhere near as aspirational a speech as Obama's in front of any group, the British press would have been all over him like flies on you-know-what (and that would have been the journalists who liked Blair.)

Watching Kirsty on Newsnight last night attacking the McCain campaign for complaining about the press coverage of Obama.  She kept asking whether it showed weakness in McCain.  Not really...It's a fact.

Look, on the three major network newscasts over a one-month period, Obama got 114 minutes of coverage to McCain's 48 minutes of coverage.  All three network news anchors went on tour with Obama, something they would rarely do for an actual sitting president.  One guy from NBC even said, once, that his knees quaked when Obama spoke.

The media are, as they say, in the tank for Obama.  That is a fact.  And I think most Americans can see that.  And those who aren't already convinced to vote for Obama may not do so on the basis of this over-exposure.

Another interesting fact: Obama is raising more than twice as much money as McCain and burning through it even quicker.  With the sort of exposure the media is giving him and with all that extra cash, you'd think he'd get a lead in the polls greater than 5% by this point.

Did you notice, too, in his speech, he could not take his eyes off of his teleprompters.  The guy cannot do anything extemporaneously without sticking his foot in his mouth.  (Think George Bush has a communications problem?) 

He is in real trouble if there is ever an unscripted, unmoderated encounter with McCain, something McCain has been pushing for in a townhall setting.  Obama is damned either way.  If he meets McCain, he's going to look like an idiot, and if he doesn't meet McCain, he's going to look like a wuss.

Obama-lovers, especially you in the British press, be prepared to be disappointed, once again, by the American people.

Many people think it is more important to look after America's interests than it is to be loved by Yurpeeins.  And rightly so.

Progress and Barack Obama

Excuse me for using blue language but I've got to say it...

I am getting sick to f***ing death of British pundits telling us how Obama's nomination marks a point of progress for the United States.

WTFO?!!!

Progress?  In race relations??

When was the last f***ing time you saw a black man or woman as foreign secretary in the UK?

Okay, I'll lower the bar: when was the last time you saw a black Director-General of the hideously white BBC?

If you folks haven't noticed, for the past 7 years, the Secretary of State of the United States has had a dark complexion, and they weren't there because they were black, they were there because they were good.

How about a Supreme Court Justice?  Maybe I'm wrong here, but I don't think any of the Law Lords, or any of the justices in the European high courts are as darkly complected as Clarence Thomas, yet another person who holds his job because he is good, not because he is black.

I'll admit there's a little bit of racism at play in the US, hell, even a whole lot...But black people have been closer to the levers of power under the "neanderthal" tendencies of unenlightened Republican presidents, than under Democratic presidents. 

Progress has been made, it just isn't the kind that makes liberals feel all warm and fuzzy inside.  You know, the kind that patronises people based upon their race and ethnicity, the kind that exacerbates that poverty of low expectations that liberals seem to want to spread.

Media Bias? Naaaaahhh....

Sorry bout the sparseness of posting...Schoolwork has been relentless this past couple of months (three more quarters left till graduation!!!!)

Anyway...I was listening to PM last night on Radio 4 when the reporter who is covering the US elections said something like this (not an exact quote but this is what he more or less said):

Bill Clinton accused the media of being biased in favour of Obama at Hilary Clinton's expense, which is entirely laughable...Now we just hope she does the right thing and gets out of his way.

The way the media has behaved has me doing the unthinkable: defending Hilary Clinton...Amazing.  I really do think she was robbed by Obama and the media.  It reminds me of the stitchup that David Cameron pulled on David Davis during the last Tory leadership elections.

I'll be one of the last people to defend her...

But I could not help but comment on this story where Hilary Clinton gave offense by pointing out notable historical races where the nominee hasn't been picked until later in the Summer.  She referred to RFK's assassination as a case in point.

This is a historical fact.  What's so bloody offensive about it?

Even Republicans are jumping on the bandwagon with this show of faux offense.

Please avert your eyes as I am about to lower the tone:

The pussification of American politics is now complete.

I hope to f*** the next president isn't as sensitive as Obama's camp are making him out to be...If so, we are all in trouble.  I mean, imagine how he'd react when it's that time of the month and someone calls him the Great Satan.

Hilary, I don't like you, but you shouldn't have apologised.  You should have just said "Grow up, for f***'s sake...A real man doesn't get offended at facts."

One of the Best Political Ads I've Ever Seen

(H/T Liberty Corner )

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.)

So, Mitt Romney has decided to...

suspend his candidacy.  What an incredible speech today.  It was way classy.

So, will it be Vice President Romney in 2008 and President Romney in 2012 or 2016?

Actually, a cabinet with all of the Republican presidential candidates in it would be formidable.

Super Tuesday Results

Okay, so my guy Mitt didn't do as well as I would have wanted him to.  But there is still enough play in this contest to make it keep going for a while.

West Virginia was the final indication that Huckabee and McCain were triangulating against Romney.  Not saying it's not fair, because that's politics.  But it does kind of give you an indication of why Huckabee may be hanging in there: he's spoiling it for Romney.

As it shakes out right now...

McCain has 547 delegates with about 42% of the Republican vote
Romney has 233 delegates with about 32% of the Republican vote
Huckabee has 145 delegates with about 22% of the Republican vote

In order for one of them to get the nomination clear and free, they need 1,191 delegates.  Many of the upcoming primaries are actually caucuses, and caucuses usually go toward Romney.  And Romney plays well in the Rust Belt, and the Mountain West.  So he's not out, and we could find it ends at the convention with a lot of deals.

That being said, Romney has had wins where he has brought in more than 50% of the Republican vote in some states, and McCain only came close to doing that in his native Arizona.

Believe it or not, I was happy to see Huckabee win in my native Georgia.  Contrary to what you may be thinking, it wasn't the evangelicals that won it for him, it was the Fair Tax.  My own representative, John Linder is the co-author of the Fair Tax Book with noted Atlanta-based, nationally-syndicated talk radio host Neal Boortz, who has been banging the Fair Tax drum for a long time.  This could mean that profound taxation reform could also be brokered as a plank in the Republican platform.