The Near Impossibility of President Ron Paul

Now the rest of the GOP field has peaked too early, people are adopting that predictable position - through nothing more meaningful than a crude process of elimination - that maybe the Republican nomination is Ron Paul's for the taking. This I doubt; what I find even more doubtful is that Paul would be a credible contender in a straight contest with Obama.

Before I explain why, let me explain my own thoughts on Paul. Yeah, he's dead right on some things - and I've been very impressed with his reasoned and non-bellicose approach to foreign policy, which is a great thing coming from a (nominal) Republican. I have little time, though, for his anti-abortion stance or for his apparent god-bothering. But hey ho. No candidate is perfect, and he's the best of a truly atrocious bunch. So while I wouldn't go so far as to say I want him to win - such passion over a deeply predictable contest that I will not be able to vote in strikes me as utterly pointless - but I suppose I would prefer him to. So why am I so dismissive of his chances?

Well, quite simply (and really rather obviously) what I want does not impact on reality in any meaningful way. Reality does not conform to my wishes. And the reality is that the deck is stacked against Paul to a massive extent. He is unlikely to win the nomination for his party, since even if he does win some early upset victories then the Republican establishment will intervene in favour of a much more mainstream and middle of the road candidate. I reckon there will be a replay of the 2004 Democrat primary campaign, where the genuinely interesting (although possibly a little barmy) Howard Dean was swiftly marginalised by the much more pedestrian yet mainstream John Kerry. The nomination will probably be Romney's; he's a safe pair of hands who will not damage the party too much even as he hands victory to Obama.

But suppose Paul did get the nomination - what then? Well, Obama would crush him. The Democrat electioneering machine would spend all of its time telling the American people that Paul is some sort of dangerous radical who would leave innocent people to get ill and die without health insurance. Hell, they could even outflank on the issue of security. Yeah, those charges might be false, but so what? Since when have presidential elections been about taking the high road? The Obama campaign would do everything they possible could to make Paul into a Goldwater for the new millennium, while simultaneously painting their guy to be solid, dependable and statesmanlike for the cameras.

Perhaps a truly great communicator could make libertarian ideals appeal to the American masses; the problem is that great communicator is not Ron Paul. Sure, he manages to avoid sticking his foot in his mouth most of the time, but that is not enough to win enough Americans over to what is potentially a radical realignment of the nature of government and state in their country. Plus, he's up against Obama, whose pompous speaking style manages to add gravitas to even the most anodyne and meaningless of pronouncements. Again, yeah, you can argue that this is unfair, but it is also reality. A Ron Paul presidential campaign might be enough to provoke a misled American people into handing a reluctant landslide to Obama.

Paul's best hope for next year is that his stance and policies in some way influence the Republican programme; in other words, that the long process of explaining his version of libertarianism begins. Then the next time a libertarian runs for the Republican nomination, these ideas are more mainstream and people are more likely to understand them and get behind them. It could be enough to get a Republican libertarian nominee in 2016 or 2020. It will certainly help to wrest control of that party away from the Christian fundamentalist path that Bush Junior put it on. But President Paul remains deeply unlikely to the point where it is basically an impossibility. It might comfort some libertarians on both sides of the Atlantic to pretend otherwise, but unfortunately it remains a pipe dream that helps them to escape from a political reality that remains stubbornly immune to the penetration of libertarian ideals into the political mainstream.

My Preference for the 2012 US election

Over the past couple of weeks, both in the comments section here and in my inbox, I've had people either expressing incredulity that I am not supporting one candidate or the other in the upcoming presidential election or asking me who I do actually support. So let me go on record and say this: I support no-one.

Two reasons - firstly, the choice before America is particularly unedifying this time around. Obama will almost certainly represent the Democrats despite being an increasingly compromised and uninspiring president. On the Republican side it is either charisma bypasses like Mitt Romney or total loons like Bachmann and Perry. The best they've got is Ron Paul, but he just seems to be a desperate choice that some libertarian's latch on to and as far as I am concerned, he offers little in the way of charisma or ability to actually win the nomination or the presidency. As far as I am concerned he's the least worst of a bad bunch; therefore, if he gets anywhere, he will therefore represent the least worst option - but I'd be very surprised if that actually happened.

The second reason is implicit in what I've written above - this is the choice before America. I'm not American; I'm not eligible to vote either in the primaries or in the general election. Therefore, unlike when this country goes to the polls, I don't feel duty bound to compromise myself and go with a candidate I'm not entirely convinced by. I'm happy to offer commentary on what will be a looonnng campaign for the control of the White House, but that's about it. Those looking for support from someone with precious little influence and no vote in the upcoming elections would do best to look elsewhere.

Why Is Rick Perry So Terrifying?

The news that Rick Perry has joined the race for the Republican nomination for President sends a shiver down my spine. He is exactly the sort of politician that the US does not need – a bellicose God-botherer who is perfectly happy to send the mentally retarded to the execution chamber despite commandments in his religion like “thou shalt not kill”. He’s for freedom, just so long as it is economic – if you’re gay and you want to marry someone of the same gender, your freedom should be curtailed in the strange worldview of this Christian fundamentalist. And while I’m pretty liberal when it comes to gun laws, I can’t help but feel doing something like this makes you look like a total dickhead:



But Perry is not alone in many of these opinions; increasingly, these represent the sort of stances that a Republican candidate must take if they want to have any chance of being successful. So why is Perry particularly terrifying?

I think it is the fact that he is George W. Bush but Bush Junior turned up to 11. From what I’ve seen and heard of Perry, he makes Bush Junior – the worst President of the United States in living memory – look like a subtle and nuanced thinker in whom you could have complete confidence. And that is what makes Perry such a dangerous option for the Republicans and, if nominated, the US as a whole. After all, we know how it ended for George W. Bush. Why on earth would anyone want to replicate the sorry farrago that was Bush Junior’s presidency? Or, even worse, risk an even more extreme version of it?

And it is this sort of candidate who makes Obama look like the best option. Obama is a weak, compromised president but he does at least come across as far saner than many of his Republican rivals. And this may well be the factor that gets him a second term – not that he’s any good, but just that he’s less mental than those he fights elections against.

So to any Republicans reading this and preparing to vote in next year’s primaries – Rick Perry: just say no.

Quote of the Day and Another Rant About Conspiracy Theories

From Longrider on yet another post at OoL expounding dubious and unconvincing conspiracy theories:

I have to say that conspiracy theories really undermines what we are doing here. When we point out genuine, provable malfeasance on the part of those who would steal our liberties, our opponents will point straight back to the conspiracy theories and laugh.

Couldn't agree more. While I absolutely believe that James Higham et al should have a right to publish what they want, especially on a site co-run by Higham, I have to say the conspiracy theory guff does nothing for the cause of liberty and will probably end up harming it. We don't need a conspiracy theory about 9/11 to show that the Patriot Act was wrong, and we don't need a conspiracy theory about 7/7 to show that all the attempts to increase the detention periods in this country were wrong. All those conspiracy theories create straw man arguments that our opponents can easily bat away, making themselves look right in the process. And the worst thing is, in articles like the one linked to above, we create those straw man arguments, not our opponents.

And I don't understand why we have to create these largely unprovable and, in my humble opinion, false ideas that cultural Marxism has taken over the world, or that Obama is closet Marxist, or that Christianity is being undermined by arguably the most incompetent organisations in the world (namely, local governments). We're not dealing with opponents who are generally very subtle about what they do. There's no great attempt to hide the fact that the DNA of innocent people is being kept on the DNA database in what represents a massive u-turn and a real concern to anyone interested in championing civil liberties in this country. They're doing it, right now, down in London. We don't need to fight members of the Frankfurt School who have been dead for decades when Clegg and Cameron are doing tangible things to damage freedom in the here and now, right in front of our noses.

But anyway; enough. Fighting conspiracy theorists is a waste of time and effort. I believe in freedom and that belief encompasses the freedom of conspiracy loons to spout their paranoia on any platform they see fit. But that same freedom allows me to point out that what they are doing doesn't help the cause of freedom and actually hinders it.

For Law, Against New Laws

As the News International scandal rumbles on in a way that increasingly resembles an endless car journey (what’s that? Rupert Murdoch is still a cunt? What a ground-breaking story!) we hear, in amidst the faux outrage from rival media outlets and the shameless vengeance of that uber-twat Gordon Brown, occasional calls for new laws and/or public inquiries. And for the life of me I can’t work out why.

It should be clear to everybody now other than the terminally stupid and Rebekah Brooks that something went badly wrong not just within News International, but in the initial police investigation into the phone hacking. And it is hardly controversial to say that hacking into the phone of a missing schoolgirl or the phones of dead soldiers is a bad thing. But does this warrant a new law to prevent it happening again? Does it require some sort of public enquiry in order to prevent a repetition? Of course it doesn’t. Why? Because phone hacking is already illegal. The same goes for blagging. So rather than calling for further regulation and for a public flaying of News International, perhaps we could all call for the existing laws to be enforced. And if the initial police investigation was ineffective in doing that, well, there are laws about perverting the course of justice that could apply to that neutered attempt to look into the misdeeds of the Murdoch empire. There are laws against what the NI journalists did; if they are enforced, then there is no need for further laws.

And this really rather obvious, yet curiously ignored, idea can be applied elsewhere. For example, rather than having ever more imaginative ways to stigmatise drinkers and smokers in the name of protecting the children, perhaps the existing laws – which have been in place for as long as I can remember – could be enforced. It is illegal for children to drink and smoke. Further legislation around this is irrelevant if the existing laws are enforced.

It would be wrong to say that every aspect of British life is regulated through the government, although it increasingly feels that way. But there are a plethora of often repetitious laws on the statute books, yet still our leaders feel the need to add to those laws. Why do this? Well, part of it is the naked desire of the ruling class to be seen to be doing something. It is easier for them to say that they are going to introduce a raft of new laws to deal with a problem than it is for them to say that the existing laws just need to be enforced and the people need to be patient. It is the mindset of “shiny new thing make it all better” – a new law will definitely stop xyz from happening in the future… despite the fact that other laws have not done so. One of the things the people need to do is to call their rulers on what could best be described as their total bullshit when it comes to new laws, but the increasingly bovine population hardly seems capable of that.

Ever since Obama was elected to the White House using slogans consisting of largely meaningless, yet positive, sounding slogans (“Hope”, “Change” etc) it has been the desire of all parties in this country to paint themselves as the party of change. So I’d like to suggest a way in which those parties could actually offer real change. Why don’t you commit to implementing no new laws where existing laws are already in place? Why not commit to making the existing legal system work rather than clogging it up with repetitious and pointless legislation? Yeah, I know that will remove a lot of the busy work that you like to have as legislators, but it would also be an example of leadership. And surely it hasn’t become too utopian to expect our leaders to actually lead?

So let’s try to engage our critical faculties, in as much as they still exist, when it comes to legislative proposals from our MPs. Let’s make sure that they only go off on their legislative adventures if it is absolutely necessary. Let’s reward those who are wise when it comes to the rule of law, and punish those who believe that legislation is about getting a good headline rather than making life better for the people of this country. Don’t get me wrong, there’s a whole host of laws that need to be repealed in order to enhance life in this country, and I would love to see that happen. But before it does, we need to stop the fuckers in Parliament adding to the sum total of legislative bollocks in this country. And as our starting point, suggesting that new restrictions on the press and public inquiries into the alleged misdeeds of News International are fucking pointless when what they did is already illegal.

The Pitiful Republican Candidates

I find it difficult to argue with this:

Shortly after the debate, Esquire quoted John Weaver, the longtime McCain strategist, scorning the GOP field as "the weakest since 1940." The New Hampshire debate provided plenty of evidence for his conclusion that the Republican Party "is nowhere near being a national governing party."

The truth is that no-one currently in the fray for the Republican nomination next year - including the ever ignorant Sarah Palin, whose constant flirtation with the concept of running for President has now become so tiresome that she is being eclipsed by her own clone -looks remotely credible as a candidate who might just be capable of taking the White House from Barack Obama. And the end result at this rate will be that Obama, like Bush Junior and Clinton before him, will be re-elected not because he is any good, but because his opponents are godawful no-hopers.

The Beast*: A Symbol of Modern America

Obama is driven around in a great, hulking limo equipped with so many security precautions and devices that it is a security nut's/techno freak's wet dream. It even has its own oxygen supply, for God's sake. Yet it cannot even clear a simple ramp in the road.

Which, in a sense, sums up modern America**. As a country, it is big, ostentatious, leading the world in technology but also spectacularly unable to win wars against much less capable or well-armed adversaries, and also seemingly unable to get its own economy - that many in the US see as the model for the world as a whole - to work properly again. And despite all its advanced technology, vast swathes of the country still believe in the invisible sky fairy and the country as a whole ends up more interested in where their President was born rather than what he is actually doing. America, the giant, technological behemoth of the world, unable to get over even the smallest of speed-bumps.

*According to the US Security people, the car that got stuck wasn't the Beast, but some sort of back-up limo. Then again, they would say that as it is mightily embarrassing that their car designed to protect the President from all manner of attack actually can't get over a simple ramp.
**And this is not just a jibe against the Obama era America; the rot set in far earlier, and was given a massive boost by the utterly inept administrations of one George W. Bush, a man not fit to tie his own shoelaces, let alone lead a world super-power.

The Barack Obama European Tour

Sounding like an ageing supergroup doing one last tour to top up the pension funds rather than a credible politician undertaking vital diplomatic missions, Obama's doing a tour of Europe. No doubt this is entirely about important work and nothing to do with his re-election campaign. I know, I know, I'm joking - but the Barack Obama Re-Election Tour of Europe would have been too obvious even for this blatant attempt to look like a statesman with international credibility while the opposition party in your country haven't even got around to the serious mud-slinging that will inevitably happen before they choose their nominee for President next year.

Much like Nixon visiting China and the USSR in the run-up to the 1972 election, this is just the start of a campaign to convince enough voters in the US that Obama is a credible statesman who is also a safe pair of hands. And given the state of the Republican party at the moment, it's probably going to work.

The 2012, Made In America Barack Obama Mug

I wonder whether he's had one of these sent to Donald Trump?

Donald Trump; Definitely Not Going To Be President

Apparently, Donald Trump wants to spend more time with his business interests rather than running for US President. I rather suspect, though, that his main concern (despite protestations to the contrary) is the fear of losing. After all, he's a brand - and an ignominious defeat to someone like Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney in the Republican primaries would damage that brand. As well as potentially damaging his colossal ego. Because he would never have made it all the way to being the nominee, and therefore the man Obama will defeat next year. He was not, and will never be, a credible candidate for the highest office in the US.

But Trump isn't the only one to opt of the race to be beaten by Obama - the ever idiotic Mike Huckabee has said "all the factors say go, but my heart says no." Whatever the fuck that might mean. As far as I can see, rather like Trump, what he actually means is that the factors are really saying no. He knows he would lose (again) if he decided to run. Wouldn't win the general election. Mainly because he wouldn't even make it to being the nominee. Last time, he lost to a grumpy old man. This time, who knows who he would lose to? The only guarantee would be that he would lose...

Of course, all of this reduces the field of potential Republican nominees. And actually makes it much less mental. Now all we need is for Sarah Palin to say she's not running and we might end up with a field of sane, if rather dull, people vying for the nomination. Which probably won't lead to a Republican President come 2013, but will also mean that the party of Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan hasn't been completely captured by its loopy, extremist elements.

Ed Miliband: Beyond Boring

If I was to sum up what is wrong is Ed Miliband in one sentence, it would sound something like this: “He’s an indignant potato fatally compromised by his close association with the miserable failure that was the Brown administration”. Helpfully, Miliband Minor has managed to sum his problems as Labour leader in one sentence as well. And it is this sentence, apparently meant to sell the Labour party to potential high-profile Lib Dem defectors:

I think we are now the natural home for progressive politics because we are the only party that can meet a credible claim on social justice.

So… let’s count the ways in which this does not work. Firstly, let’s put it into perspective – he’s trying to get people to defect to his party. He needs something that sounds confident and inspiring. So starting his sentence with “I think” is pretty weak. As party leader, he should know. Even better, he should believe. Modern politics seems to be all about the belief.

Secondly, the natural home sounds quite comforting – the sort of place you might retire to. It certainly doesn’t exude urgency. Perhaps something better like “the only choice”.

Likewise, “credible claim” sounds like a lawyer hedging their bets. Not a leader trying to inspire ministers to leave the cabinet and join his party in opposition for what will probably be a minimum of the next 4 years.

And overall, the whole thing is too long. It is a two part sentence when it should be a short and punchy slogan. I mean, Obama didn’t have “with all things considered, and all other options evaluated, I do believe I can make a credible claim to be the candidate of change” on his posters. No, his watchword was simply “change”.

Miliband Minor’s flaw – and I think it will be the fatal flaw for his leadership – is an inability to inspire. It has become almost a cliché to say it, but he really does resemble IDS. As such, he is a liability for his own party and an asset for the coalition. He sounds annoying, and his words are insipid and uninspiring. Hell, if I was Vince Cable (who his pitch seems to be directed at) I’d stay put – not for ideological reasons, but rather to avoid the tedium I’m sure is involved in having a conversation with Ed Miliband.

Predictions and the 2012 Presidential Election

Ok, since it has started, let’s talk about the Presidential 2012 Election in the US. Of course, making any sort of prediction about a contest that is still well over a year away is always going to be fraught with difficulty and risk, but here’s my headline prediction: Obama will win. Comfortably.

Sure, his first term has hardly been covered in glory, and those who saw him as something like the second coming of the Messiah have had a rough fall to earth. But it has also been lacking in disaster, and has arguably gone better than the first terms of both Bush Junior and Clinton (both of whom won comfortable re-elections). Furthermore, the remarkable electoral machine that took him from little known Senator to President is gearing up again. Every day now until November 2012 the President will be campaigning by default. Every time he appears on the TV it will be reinforcing the concept of Obama as President. In the meantime, little known or compromised Republicans will be vying to become the nominee. They will be fighting not only against each other but also against the awesome power of incumbency.

Plus, I rather suspect that while the narrative of the last Presidential Election was that it was an exciting, unpredictable contest, the narrative will be that this coming on is a boring, predictable race. Given what the polls are showing, Obama will coast to re-election. The stories will be about what is going wrong with the Republican campaign, why it isn’t gaining traction, why it isn’t going anywhere. Like the Kerry campaign or the Dole campaign.

There is always the risk of a rogue element, however. A third party candidate, like Anderson in 1980 or Perot in 1992, could make a difference. As could a serious scandal involving Obama. But the one rogue element that won’t make a difference to the outcome is Sarah Palin. Far from guaranteed the nomination if she runs (an anybody-but-Palin campaign looks like a distinct possibility), she also simply won’t connect with the majority of moderate Americans who make someone the President. Sure, she has passionate followers in the Christian Right, but she is too divisive a figure (and too intellectually shallow) to be a credible candidate in a national election. History has shown that the Presidential candidates from the extreme wings of either party tend to crash and burn – see McGovern and Goldwater. Palin would join them in the background of the history books. Which is why Palin should seriously consider whether it is actually in their best interests to run. After all, she has her own little niche in US politics. A defeat in a Presidential election would tarnish her image, particularly since that would leave her record as involved in 2 Presidential campaigns, and being on the losing ticket in both of them.

Change will come; it will come in 2016, when Obama can’t run again.

In what is probably the least surprising news story you'll hear all week, Barack Obama is going to run for a second term. And as things stand, he'll almost certainly win:

Despite shedding some support, polling by the Pew Research Center suggests Mr Obama is in a stronger position at this stage than either Bill Clinton or George W Bush, both of whom went on to win re-election convincingly.

In polling carried out in March, some 47% of registered voters said they would like to re-elect Mr Obama, with just 37% saying they would vote for an as-yet-unknown Republican candidate.

Of course, this news - while utterly unsurprising - does have one significant downside. It effectively fires the starting gun on a contest that is still over a year and a half away. Such is the insanity of modern US electoral politics...

Change You Can Believe In.

*Sighs*

The US Mid-term Elections in Perspective

How different it must all have looked to Obama two years ago. Then, he had just been elected by a legion of adoring followers. He had won the most convincing victory for a Democratic presidential candidate in a generation. And his followers seemed to think he was poised to be one of the greatest presidents of all time.

Now, he's just another president - kicked senseless by an electorate angry over the economy and his apparent failure to make "change" and "hope" actually mean something. He had a lot of political capital when he was elected, but large swathes of that were spunked away over health-care reform. He's battered, he's on the ropes but - and this is the crucial bit - there is no reason to think that's he given up or is defeated.

So, despite all the right-wing crowing on both sides of the Atlantic about "one-term Barry", I think it is far too early to write off Obama. And I still believe that in another two years time, Obama will be celebrating a comfortable win at the 2012 Presidential election. There are a number of reasons for this.

Firstly, the mood of the electorate at mid-term elections tends to be very different to how they vote at Presidential elections. It is one thing to vote for a Tea-Partier in a Senate or House election, another to do the same for a presidential candidate. On both sides of the Atlantic, voters like using these sort of elections to fire a warning shot across the bows of their leaders. That is no guarantee that they are willing to actually dump them at the next election. Blair took kickings at local and by-elections; the British people still managed to elect that egregious idiot a number of times.

Secondly, this was not (quite) the comprehensive drubbing of the Democrats many were expecting. They lost control of the House, but not the Senate. Harry Reid kept his seat. The likes of Christine O'Donnell were (mercifully) rejected by the voters. The Democrats are battered, and bruised but not down and out. Furthermore, the heady rhetoric of many Republican candidates about "taking America back" means they will have to do a great deal to meet their campaign promises - and if they don't, they can expect the same sort of kicking next time out that Obama has received for not living up to the empty campaign slogan of "change".

Furthermore, there is tension within the Republican party between the mainstream and the Tea Party. And there is a real danger for that party that, come the Presidential primary season, a long drawn out battle will be fought between a mainstream Republican candidate and a Tea-Party member. If this happens (particularly if, as seems very likely, Obama will be renominated without a fight) then the spectacle of the Republican party in the run up to November 2012 will be bitter infighting. It's one of the key rules of modern politics - divided parties seldom win. As things stand, the Republican party lacks a clear message and a clear strategy. It consists of a party with two separate, and not necessarily compatible, wings eyeing each other up warily. And it is going to take a lot of compromise to get that party to unite behind one individual presidential candidate - and there is no guarantee that this candidate will be credible.

Finally, Obama has one massive advantage - incumbency. For the next two years, he could effectively campaign for re-election from the White House, showing that he is presidential, a real leader and with every pronouncement he makes heading to the top of the news bulletins. Contrast with the Republicans, who don't have a figurehead and aren't likely to have one for a good eighteen months. Obama has two years in which to get that formidable publicity machine that got him elected in the first place going again. As long as he understands that the voters aren't happy, he can do something to change that in his favour.

So I think Obama will re-election, and history has shown time and time again that presidents who suffer mid-term setbacks can go on to win again, sometimes by landslides. Of course, nothing is set in stone, and the Republicans may yet turn this muted victory into the start of a real campaign to take back the White House. But the Republicans aren't as strong or as united as they might appear to be, and Republican triumphalism over this election win is likely to be as damaging to their cause as apparent Democrat complacency was after Obama's win in 2008.

Keeping Promises, Managing Expectations

Here’s an interesting article about Obama and his current woes. It stresses that he has actually achieved a lot of his agenda, but is struggling in the polls regardless. And the article hints at the reason for this – when he was elected, he promised the earth and now it comes to delivering, what he has to offer isn’t quite the change people believed in. He failed to manage expectations, and is suffering as a result.

This has always been the charge leveled against populist politicians – they offer a better tomorrow, but when they are elected and tomorrow become today, there’s something lacking in the reality they create. So what has happened recently is politicians have become vague on what they promise. Gone are the concrete policies, presumably in the hope that the electorate won’t be disappointed when either the policies don’t appear, or when those policies do appear and actually turn out to be a bit shit. Instead, politicians try to get our votes through spouting platitudes.

It isn’t just Obama and his claims to represent “Change” and “Hope” – although Lord knows those concepts should have been interrogated more thoroughly before he was handed the keys to the White House. It is also seen in Cameron’s call for change – a meaningless concept without extrapolation. And it was in the rhetoric that dragged Blair into Downing Street – just what does “education, education, education” actually mean? That it was his priority – but his priority to do what? Fuck up first? Fuck up the most? Likewise, “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime” is meaningless without the “how” – how are you going to be tough on crime and its causes? Furthermore, whenever a politician talks about a big concept like, say, fairness, it is apparently without any inkling that such a concept is relative, and how it will be defined will vary from community to community and, indeed, from individual to individual.

So these empty strap lines and meaningless assertions are meant to make you want to vote for a politician without them actually having to tell you what they will do. But rather than managing the expectations of the electorate, it heightens them. Obama represents change – which the vast majority of people would probably interpret as change for the better. When he delivers the American status quo with just a little bit more state tinkering in some areas (like health care), people are disappointed. Very disappointed. Because that isn’t change. Likewise, Blair’s crime pledge – it sounds like he is going to sort out crime once and for all. When it becomes clear that what he actually plans to do is give various malcontents a meaningless trophy like an ASBO, of course people are fucked off. Particularly when they become the victims of crime themselves.

Saying nothing beyond empty buzzwords is not enough to stop the massive disappointment in politicians when they fail to deliver anything more than the same politics with different personalities presiding over it. The only way in which politicians can effectively manage the expectations of the electorate is to be more honest about what they can, and can’t, do. I’ve said it before but I’ll say it again: the most honest politician – the sort of one that you should trust and consider voting for – will be the one who says “nope, sorry, can’t help you with that”. But whenever a politician waddles on to the political stage spouting meaningless platitudes about hope and change, you should be very suspicious about what they mean by those phrases – if, indeed, they actually mean anything at all.

Obama, Islam and The Daily Mail

Oooh, it has been a while since I last tore apart a Daily Mail article. Then I saw this one, that combines largely incoherent rage against two of their favourite targets (Islam and Obama) and... and how could I resist?

The headline is:

'Provocative, insensitive and uncaring': Fury after Obama backs mosque near site of September 11 disaster

Two points - first of all, being "provocative, insensitive and uncaring" is something that The Daily Mail should know all about - it is what they do all day, every day. In fact, it should probably the tagline for their hate-rag.

Secondly, I thought that September 11th was a terrorist attack - the use of the word "disaster" seems curiously restrained for the Mail. They missed a chance to be hyperbolic there.

On with the article:

Barack Obama has been hit by a furious backlash from victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks after he backed plans to build a mosque near Ground Zero.

As we shall come to see, the sentence above should read that Obama "...has been hit by a furious backlash from some victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks and some Republicans..." An important qualification that the Mail didn't see fit to mention. Then again, imprecise terms help to create the hysteria, don't they? As this next section shows.

The proposed site for the 13-storey building is close to where almost 3,000 people died nine years ago after Muslim hijackers flew two jet airliners into the World Trade Center.

Oooo, and there is is - the motherload. Note the phrase "... Muslim hijackers". Can we dispute that? Technically not - the hijackers were Muslim. Yet they were also male - so why not write "male hijackers"? They were also human - so why not write "human hijackers"? Why not list their individual ethnicities? The problem with the use of the term "Muslim" - what makes it misleading at the very least - is the broad nature of the phrase. Islam is a religion followed by millions across the world and has different factions that believe in different things. The 9/11 hijackers were a particular kind of Muslim - they were Islamic fundamentalist militants. And as such, they were divorced from the vast majority of Muslims across the world. The use of the word "Muslim" in this context is misleading as it does not take into account the breadth of beliefs and different levels of fundamentalism inherent within that religion.

BTW, fact fans, the new mosque is two blocks away from the site of Ground Zero. Just in case you are wondering.

Mr Obama expressed his support for the mosque, which will replace a building damaged by the attacks, at a White House meal celebrating Ramadan.

He said: ‘Let me be clear: As a citizen and as President I believe that Muslims have the same right to practise their religion as everyone else in this country.

‘That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community centre on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.’

Let's have a round of applause for Obama - a man who thus far in his presidency has been more than a little underwhelming has said something that is simultaneously courageous and absolutely right. America was founded on the principle of freedom of religion - and this freedom has to be protected, particularly if the religious building is being built on private land in accordance with the law.

His speech on Friday was heavily criticised by a group representing the families of victims of the terrorist attack, who called the plan a ‘deliberately provocative act that will precipitate more bloodshed in the name of Allah’.

Bullshit. It will have quite the opposite effect - by not discriminating against Islam based on the fanaticism of a tiny minority of Muslims, his speech will reduce and slow the rate of radicalisation. To do the opposite - to ban this mosque on the basis of an ignorant tainting of all Muslims as fundamentalist will increase alienation and in doing so increase the chance of more bloodshed in the name of Allah.

Debra Burlingame, a sister of a pilot killed when his plane was flown by a terrorist into the Pentagon and a spokesperson for victims’ families, said: ‘Barack Obama has abandoned America at the place where America’s heart was broken nine years ago, and where her true values were on display for all to see.’

Barack Obama was actually talking about a site two blocks away from "the place where America's heart was broken nine years ago". Furthermore, religious tolerance is part of America's values - and what Obama said is completely in line with those values.

BTW the Pentagon, where this lady's brother died, is in Washington, not New York. Wonder whether she objected to the rebuilding of the Pentagon? Probably not, because that wasn't about the "Muslims", just the US war machine that has, through years of attacks and aggression, helped to provoke the wrath of Islamic fundamentalists.

Peter King, a Republican congressman in New York, said the President had been wrong to back the plan, adding: ‘It is insensitive and uncaring for the Muslim community to build a mosque in the shadow of Ground Zero.’

Ooo, looky, a Republican congressman in an election year who doesn't agree with the sitting US Democrat president. Who'd have thunk it, eh?

Sally Regenhard, whose firefighter son was killed at the World Trade Center, condemed the President for a 'gross lack of sensitivity to the 9/11 families and to the people who were lost.'

Well, Regenhard is entitled to her opinions. Just as Muslims are if they want to express their religious beliefs in a mosque a few streets away from Ground Zero. In this case, on private property. The fact that Regenhard has lost someone does not make her opinion more valid that the opinions of others - tragedy is not a trump card in public political debate.

Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner said the decision to build the mosque wasn't an issue of religious freedom, but a matter of respect.

'The fact that someone has the right to do something doesn't necessarily make it the right thing to do. That is the essence of tolerance, peace and understanding,' he said.

So, the House Minority Leader is opposing the sitting President in an election year - again, nothing startling here. It would actually be more startling - and, indeed, interesting - if said representative agreed with Obama. As it stands, the correct response is "of course he'd say that - it's his job."

New York Republican Congressman Peter King added: 'President Obama is wrong. It is insensitive and uncaring for the Muslim community to build a mosque in the shadow of ground zero.'

Hmmm, hasn't this already been said?

Democratic Senate candidate Jeff Greene of Florida said: 'President Obama has this all wrong and I strongly oppose his support for building a mosque near ground zero especially since Islamic terrorists have bragged and celebrated destroying the Twin Towers and killing nearly 3,000 Americans.

'Freedom of religion might provide the right to build the mosque in the shadow of ground zero, but common sense and respect for those who lost their lives and loved ones gives sensible reason to build the mosque someplace else.'

This is more interesting if only because the person speaking is a Democrat. However, for all the world, he sounds a lot like a candidate in an election year trying to jump onto a populist bandwagon. And he's also wrong - he's conflating "Islamic terrorists" with "Islam".

However, Colleen Kelly, who lost her brother Bill in the 9/11 attacks, disagreed and claimed a mosque would be 'a fitting tribute'.

'This is the voice of Islam that I believe needs a wider audience. This is what moderate Islam is all about,' she said.

A-ha! Someone who gets it! Magic. And the fact that she tragically lost her brother shows that the families of the bereaved are not the homogenous entity they are sometimes made out to be for the sake of political expediency.

Challenged about his comments during a family trip to Florida yesterday, the President said: 'I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right that people have that dates back to our founding.'

Obama said that 'my intention was simply to let people know what I thought. Which was that in this country we treat everybody equally and in accordance with the law, regardless of race, regardless of religion.'

Uh-huh. Obama also gets the point about religious freedom in the US - a principle on which that country was founded that appears to be on the cusp of being forgotten.

The White House insisted Mr Obama was not backing away from his initial comments.

Spokesman Bill Burton said: 'What he said last night, and reaffirmed today, is that if a church, a synagogue or a Hindu temple can be built on a site, you simply cannot deny that right to those who want to build a mosque.'

Good - Obama shouldn't back away from his comments. And I'd have more sympathy with the anti-mosque brigade if they were looking to ban all religious sites of worship within a two block radius of Ground Zero. But they're not; and even if they were, I'd only have more sympathy with them - not believe that they are correct.

Florida Governor Charlie Crist said: 'I think he's right - I mean you know we're a country that in my view stands for freedom of religion and respect for others.

'I know there are sensitivities and I understand them. This is a place where you're supposed to be able to practice your religion without the government telling you you can't.'

Excellent! A Republican who gets it as well! No wonder he's having to run for the Senate as an Independent rather than Republican, though.

There had been mounting pressure for Obama to speak out on the issue after his political enemies, including former candidate for the vice presidency Sarah Palin, criticised the plan.

How predictable - Sarah Palin adopts the ignorant, populist stance on a issue. How deeply tedious that woman is.

The site was bought by the not-for-profit group the Cordoba Initiative for £3 million.

It plans to spend £75 million on a complex including a prayer room, mosque and ‘September 11 memorial and contemplation space’.

Developer Sharif el-Gamal said: ‘We are deeply moved and tremendously grateful for our President’s words.’

In a sense el-Gamal shouldn't be grateful to Obama - he should be grateful to the fact that America was based, in part, on the concept of religious freedom.

Which is the point here. Muslims have a right to worship just as much as any other religious believer. Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty sure that Islam is a load of toss just like every other religion. But if you are going to have a free society, then you have to allow people to be free to believe in nonsensical toss. Otherwise, you are discriminating; you become illiberal. You become an enemy of freedom.

And if you want to understand just how crass the whole idea of not having a mosque near the site of Ground Zero, then just imagine the outcry if Northern Ireland banned Catholic Churches because the IRA once carried out terrorist atrocities in that country. Same principle here; just a different religion...

Why it is too early to write off Obama

It is becoming increasingly common to see Barack Obama's chances of re-election being written off by many. But I reckon it remains far too early to wave goodbye to the concept of a second-term for President Obama.

Certainly, I'd agree that his first term in office has not been as smooth as many might have expected. For example, the potential loss of Rahm Emmanuel would be a further swift kick in the knackers for Obama. Then again, White House Chief of Staffs are often replaced (look at the number who served under Clinton). The idea that a Chief of Staff is there for the duration is a largely fictional one (see Leo McGarry) or only happens if said Chief of Staff is largely impotent (see Andrew Card). Powerful, politically ambitious and long-serving Chief of Staffs are few and far between - H R Haldeman was arguably all three, but who wants to follow his career trajectory?

Other factors, like the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, have actually played out quite well for Obama. Sure, he's taken some flak for not responding quickly enough to that disaster and (from some) faced criticism for his anti-business rhetoric. But guess what? He's targeted BP (rightly or wrongly) for a reason, and as I watch Tony Hayward easing himself out of BP, I can't help but notice that he has been pretty successful at deflecting attention from himself to one of the companies responsible for the disaster. Sure, by all means criticise Obama for his rhetoric, but don't lose sight of the fact that it is done for a reason - and that Obama seems to be benefitting from that rhetoric.

No doubt that if the Democrats do badly in the midterms, we'll have another round of gleeful "Obama's finished" stories. But again, they'll be short-sighted, since Presidents often face a hostile congress. Furthermore, both Clinton and Reagan were unpopular at the mid-point of their first terms, yet went on to win comfortable victories at the next Presidential election. By contrast, Bush Senior was very popular about halfway through his first term. It didn't stop him from going into early retirement after the 1992 Presidential election.

Whenever I see someone writing off Obama, or comparing him to Jimmy Carter (which is basically the same thing), I can't help but notice that there is a fair amount of wishful thinking involved in such statements. Of course those on the right, or who are for the free market and against increasing the size of an already bloated state even further, want Obama to fall at the next election. But the sad truth is wanting it will not, alone, make it happen. And there is one big thing missing for those who want Obama to replicate Carter's performance in 1980. Namely, a decent Republican candidate.

Because in order for Obama to fall, there needs to be a credible opposition. And at the moment, the Republican party is struggling to be one. Sure, some of its attacks against Obama are sticking - and this will help it in the mid-terms - but a victory in a Presidential election needs a credible, eloquent spokesperson who can become the nominee. That's what's absent from the Republican party at the moment. The party is an amorphous, anti-Obama blob, with no clear figurehead. And put very simply, an anti-Obama feeling is not going to be able to become the next President of the United States. The Republican party needs to be trying to identify people to nominate, right here, right now. And if they really want to win the White House back, then they need to find someone credible to nominate.

Because it certainly won't happen if the Republicans nominate that utter moron Sarah Palin...

Abbott and Obama

Apparently, Diane Abbott isn't comparing herself to Barack Obama:

"I'm not comparing myself to Barack Obama because he's a once in a life-time figure but two years ago no-one could have imagined a black man as US President. If that was possible in the US, I think people can change their ideas in Britain as well."

Finally, I can agree with Diane Abbott. She's not like Barack Obama. In reality, all they share is the fact that they come from ethnic minorities in their respective countries. Aside from that, they share nothing. Obama is an intelligent, politically savvy with a certain quiet charisma and, for the most part, a very measured approach to political action. He is also, for a politician, relatively good looking. Unlike Ms Abbott, who is fat, earnest, hypocritical cliche and a charisma vacuum to boot. Seriously, watch her on stage with the other four candidates for the Labour leadership. She is the only person - bar Gordon Brown - who seems able to make Ed Balls look quite personable by comparison. The differences between her and the incumbent US President could not be more pronounced: somehow, Obama made himself synonymous with hope. Abbott is synonymous with nothing that even approaches hope.

So no, Diane Abbot is not like Obama. The very fact that she would compare herself with Obama highlights just how much of her political identity she equates with her ethnicity. And for the record, I think people in Britain probably would change their ideas and elect someone from an ethnic minority as a party leader, and potentially even Prime Minister. However, it isn't ideas around ethnicity that would have to change in order to put Abbott in Number 10. It is also our ideas around why it isn't a great idea to elect an inarticulate, hypocritical, socialist idiot as Prime Minister.

Beware the Populist Politician

Much has been made in the past few days of Obama's comments about BP in the aftermath of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. While it is wrong to paint BP as a complete innocent in the story, there can be little doubt that Obama's comments have had implications that were easy to predict - it has damaged BP as a company, it has put strain on the special relationship with the UK and it has left the US wide open to charges of hypocrisy when you consider incidents like the Bhopal disaster. Plus, y'know, this BP bashing doesn't actually help to resolve the issue - it is in everyone's, including BP's, best interest that this disaster is dealt with as quickly as possible. Now, I'm pretty sure Obama is intelligent enough to have anticipated at least some of these consequences, which does rather beg the question of why he went ahead and made his comments anyway. The answer is obvious - a little bit of short-term populism; a chance to identify an enemy of the American people (in this case BP) and then a chance to look tough by bullying that enemy.

You can see another example of the same phenomena here in the UK with Ed Ball's sudden conversion to the need to restrict immigration or, to put it another way, Ball's recent conversion to immigrant bashing. Now I don't think that Balls - who for all the world comes across as an economic policy wonk (as well as nasty little wanker, but that's not the main point here for once) - really has a problem with immigration. However, he saw his boss taking a (deserved) kicking for ducking a debate with a voter about immigration, and has decided that he doesn't want the same thing to happen to him. Plus, he's in the contest to be Labour leader and needs something to differentiate himself from the other candidates other than most people who know of him seem to think that he is a bit of a prick. Therefore, jump on the bash the immigrant bandwagon, and maybe even score some nice headlines from The Sun and The Daily Hate Mail while you're at it.

Of course, this approach from Balls misses the point in a number of ways. Part of the reason why Labour lost the last election was because of immigration. However, there were a number of other factors that were also crucial in creating that staggering defeat. Like the fact that they shafted the economy, the education system, civil liberties and the armed forces over a 13 year period. Balls is also missing the point that the reason why so many people in the UK feel uncomfortable about immigration is because Nu Labour studiously refused to engage with anyone on any sort of a debate over immigration - meaning that it has almost become a bit of a political taboo. What Nu Labour should have done is have made the case for immigration - to have pointed out during their years in power that the economy is dependent on immigrant labour and on immigrant spending. Instead, by saying nothing, they allowed the BNP to grow and for immigration to become something sightly sinister in the eyes of some voters. Of course, Balls could try to make this case now rather than bashing immigration. But he isn't, because that's a debate that needs to be had over a long period of time, whereas he may be able to benefit from immigrant bashing right here, right now.

Both Obama and Balls (surely this is one of the first times that the two have been directly compared and found to be similar) are playing tactical, rather than strategic, political games. They are chasing headlines, and trying to make themselves look tough in the eyes of the media. The problem with this is that politicians chasing headlines are never politicians at their best. In fact, they tend to be at their self-serving and cowardly worst when they're doing things like this. And there is a real danger to politicians in that they might get caught up in responding to events rather than trying to think strategically about what they want to achieve overall. There is a fundamental difference between a politician with a determination to implement a vision and a politician determined to chase headlines/respond to events. It is the difference between a Thatcher and a Major, and an Attlee and a Blair.

So beware of politicians flirting with populism. Beware of those politicians chasing headlines. Beware of politicians trying to look tough for the media. Because this is where we tend to see politicians at their most untrustworthy, self-serving and shallow.