A Palin Candidacy?

I’m pretty sure that I haven’t missed an announcement, so I guess that Sarah Palin has yet to declare her candidacy for the Republican nomination for President. This makes me wonder whether she is actually going to do so.

In a sense, it might be wiser for her not to declare and sit this one out. The field for the nomination is crowded, and there are already two slightly loopy candidates in that field – one of who looks and sounds a lot like Palin but with the added advantage that she didn’t fuck off half way through a term as an elected representative. To some extent Palin has been out-manoeuvred by Bachmann. Furthermore, if Palin runs and fails to even get the nomination, then her brand of simplistic redneck nonsense will be damaged. She won’t such a hot ticket if her record reads “National Elections Fought: 2. Won: 0”.

Then there’s the fact that Obama, while weakened, still looks like the most likely victor from next year’s general election. He has the massive advantage of incumbency and the fact that, while he’s been a disappointment to many, he hasn’t been an absolute catastrophe and his policies are only truly execrable to those who wouldn’t vote for him under any circumstances anyway. Palin is unlikely to win the nomination; she’s also unlikely to win the White House even if nominated.

There’s a sense in which it would be better for Palin to wait for 2016, when there’ll be much more of a level playing field. But then she risks the fate of Hillary Clinton in 2008 – of being a presumptive nominee for so long that the idea of her candidacy becomes boring, and the space is therefore created for a more charismatic stalking horse to come along and steal the nomination and, maybe, even the White House.

So in a sense Palin is damned if she does and damned if she doesn’t. So I reckon she should go with the latter option. Continue the Sarah Palin show across America. Then again, I’m biased as I think that the idea of President Palin is utterly terrifying and should be avoided at all costs…

Rest assured, it isn't just Rick Perry with illiberal ideas vying for the Republican nomination, as this video shows:



Try to ignore the irritating presenter and marvel at yet another contender utterly unsuited to the office they are trying to attain.

Obama: One Year On

Happy first birthday to the Obama administration. Of course, it isn't all good news: the loss of Teddy Kennedy's seat to the Republicans is a blow, and one that may scuttle Obama's already faltering health plan. It is tempting to paint Scott Brown's victory as a crippling indictment of Obama's first year in office; while Obama's presence in the Oval Office may have been a contributing factor to some people's votes, it is equally possible that the voters of Massachusetts simply wanted to vote Republican after decades of mindlessly voting for Teddy Kennedy. God knows, I would. So be warned; losing the Senate super-majority does not mean that Obama is set to lose the White House in three years time.

See for Obama, it's one year down, and most probably seven years to go. Because while Obama has done little that is memorable in his first year other than creating a shit storm on the issue of health care, he has managed not to fuck up too badly. In the pantheon of Democratic presidents, he's no FDR - but he isn't a Jimmy Carter either. In fact, Obama is doing a hell of a lot better than Clinton was at this point in his presidency, and Clinton won a second term easily.

So I reckon Obama will win re-election in 2012, even if the mid-term elections later this year don't go tremendously well for the Democrats. Not least because the Republicans have, over the course of this year, done nothing to sort themselves out and find someone decent to fight Obama in 2012. Despite the Brown setback, the best birthday present the Obama administration could get from the Republicans is the one they are offering - the ridiculous Sarah Palin is still that party's leading light.

Palin Writes!

No, not Michael Palin. Sadly.

Forgive me, but I won't be rushing to buy either of these books:

I don't need to read to read about how Palin is a nightmare. She exudes a happy, moronic ignorance towards reality in every single one of her pronouncements and the bitter legacy of the two Bush Junior Administrations shows just how fuck awful having an idiotic Christian fundamentalist in the White House can be. And as for reading Palin's autobiography - well, I'm sure it wouldn't take long but the seven and a quarter minutes it would take to read it would be a massive waste of time. What the fuck does she have to say about anything? Other than she buried the already floundering McCain bid for the White House?

Of course, this is part of a bid for the Presidency. What is worrying is just how popular it seems to be:

Going Rogue, written in just four months for a reported $7m (£4.4m) advance, pushed Dan Brown's new novel The Lost Symbol off the top spot on Amazon.com's bestseller lists earlier this month, over six weeks before publication.

Fucking hell. People want to read the unreadable. But the success of her autobiography is irrelevant. It is her political future that worries me. So let me just make this point clear to any readers of this blog who care: if Sarah Palin were to win the Republican nomination for President, then she (hopefully) would bury that party in the 2012 election. And in the deeply unlikely scenario of her winning any presidential election, I have no doubt that she could and would bury America as well.

Hillary on the Sidelines

Accurate yet not surprising:

There is little doubt that Hillary Clinton’s star has significantly waned since January. Hugely overshadowed by a White House that dominates US foreign policy, the former first lady rarely makes headlines on policy questions. She has gone from fiery senator and presidential contender to increasingly marginalized run of the mill bureaucrat.

Of course Hillary has been marginalised - why else would Obama have made her Secretary of State? He is an interventionist, energetic young President. He leads policy in his administration - domestic and foreign. The various secretaries and other Cabinet members are there because the Constitution demands it; not as policy leaders. 

Obama knew that Hillary's vanity meant she wouldn't be able to resist the position of Secretary of State, but also knew that by tying her so closely to his administration she would have to be loyal to him, and couldn't set herself up as a potential rival for the Democratic nomination in 2012. Of course he didn't offer it to Clinton because he likes or respects her - the Clinton v. Obama primary battle was arguably even more bitter than the General Election campaign against McCain. No, Obama made her Secretary of State because, for all his flaws, he is a savvy political operator. He's using the age-old advice of "keep your friends close, and keep your enemies closer."

In fact, he did something similar to Smilin' Joe Biden when he offered him the Vice-Presidency. Two of the leading lights of the Democratic party are now part of the Obama administration - they cannot oppose him or run against him without destroying their own careers by appearing disloyal. 

As I've noted on several occasions, the Republican Party doesn't seem able to offer a credible alternative to Obama. And Obama has managed to neutralise many of the potential Democratic alternatives who haven't managed to neutralise themselves. At this rate, he is going to coast to renomination and re-election in 2012. 

So of course Hillary Clinton has been marginalised. She became Secretary of State precisely so she could become a footnote in the history of the Obama Administration. It is what he had planned for her from the moment she accepted the job. 

Republican Woes

The oft-flawed Danny Finkelstein has managed to come up with a decent article here about the problems of the Republican party. For my part, this little story here sums up those problems perfectly:

And then, a few days before the event, Kent County Republicans announced very publicly that they were withdrawing the invitation. They had discovered that Governor Huntsman favoured civil partnerships between homosexuals. They did not want to be addressed by such a man. Two weeks later Barack Obama announced that he had offered Governor Huntsman an appointment as Ambassador to China. And he had accepted.

Top stuff, that. Take a popular moderate from your party and then drive him into the hands of the opposition. Great way to expand your party base, increase your support and help you to the White House next time out. Or, more realistically, make your party a fan club for the likes of Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee and no-one else. 

The Republicans need to sort their game out as a matter of urgency. Especially now that Barack Obama has decided that the fabled "change that you can believe in" is second-rate social democracy with an aggressive spending plan. But they won't sort themselves out whilst they remain in the thrall of the Christian Right. The Christian Right is a minority in America, and the Republicans won't win by appealing just to that minority. Particularly since the views minority alienate so many of the more moderate voters the Republicans so desperately need to win. 

Of course, I'm not a Republican, and I can't vote in US elections. If I did, it would probably be for the sanest Libertarian candidate regardless of party. But every country needs a strong opposition. And at the moment, the Republican party can't be an effective opposition. It has hobbled itself with Christian fundamentalism...

No shit Sherlock time:

"More than 6 in 10 Republicans today are white conservatives, while most of the rest are whites with other ideological leanings; only 11% of Republicans are Hispanics, or are blacks or members of other races... The results show clearly that the Republican Party today is first and foremost a political entity dominated by white Americans. Eighty-nine percent of rank-and-file Republicans are non-Hispanic whites, leaving just 5% who are Hispanic (of any race), 2% who are black, and 4% of other races."

Still, good to see that the true legacy of the Bush Junior years - and his so-called "compassionate Conservatism" - is a Republican party less inclusive than ever...

Obama: 100 Days

So, Barack Obama has been in power for 100 days, and a Republican Senator has given him the extra special gift of a defection. I find it mildly amusing that the press has suddenly picked up on the first 100 days of the Obama presidency again - most of their coverage petered out at around Day 36, when the media realised that Obama wasn't really going to do anything other than be a President - and that role isn't actually that newsworthy on a day to day basis.

They'll be some celebration and some commiseration about Obama's achievement today - if you can call being in power for 100 days an actual achievement. After all, all he has had to do is not die or be impeached. Which most US Presidents, but not all, have been able to manage.

Whether you think Obama has been a success of not is really down to your political views - he's certainly done a great deal, but sadly spent a lot of money and grasped a lot of power for the state in the process. No-one should be surprised, though, at his actions in his first 100 days. He's been a Democrat; not exactly a revelation given the party he's a member of and leads.

But it is this defection - which puts Obama very close to having a filibuster proof majority - should be the big story now the first hundred days are at an end. And it is the motivations of Senator Specter that fascinates me. He's moved to Democrats because the Republicans have moved so far to the right. And with Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin acting as the de facto leaders of the Republicans, his claim can't really be disputed. And the Republicans are beginning to resemble the Conservatives in 1997 - lurching to the right because the party doesn't know where to go but instead is listening to the loudest voices.

The problem is that whilst a small minority love Limbaugh and Palin and their rabid ilk, it does not provide a coherent platform for realistic opposition within US Politics. Obama and co can laugh off the Republicans as fundamentalists, reactionaries and far right. They can dismiss their case without breaking into a sweat. Which further negates and already crippled opposition in the US.

The Republicans need to take the media manufactured landmark of Obama's first 100 days to take stock and find a platform that will appeal to the people. That is the first step to them becoming an effective opposition again. It may not win them control of Congress in two years or the White House back in four years, but at least they will have a coherent argument to oppose Obama. It is a first step in their recovery. However, this lurch to the right moves them further away from a coherent platform and being a credible opposition.

And they need to be a credible opposition more than ever now. Because, as the example of Britain in 1997 shows, a photogenic, popular young leader with absolute control of the legislature and no credible opposition can wreak havoc in that country. Unless the Republicans remember how to be in opposition, the same could happen in the US.

Ted Kennedy And US Nepotism

So, Ted Kennedy has a brain tumour. Bad news for him, bad news for his family. For what it is worth, I hope he gets better.

But I really can’t understand all the attention that this news has got. Seriously, when I was (half) watching Channel Four news last week there were crowds outside the hospital, cheering as he walked out. I know he is fat, old and ill, but walking can’t be much of a problem for him, surely?

Which got me wondering exactly why so many people care about Ted Kennedy. Because on paper, he isn’t the most likeable or capable of politicians. In fact, he’s pretty crap. I mean, his career has hardly been scintillating. His main claim to fame is that he has been in power for a long time. Well, whoopee-do – but by that logic we should also be celebrating Fidel Castro, because he spent ages in power. Aside from that, his career is mainly misjudgement and scandal. Take his run for President in 1980 – a glaring example of disloyalty to (the admittedly dreadful) man who was then President of his party, he managed to assist Reagan into the White House and helped to bring in 12 years of Republican rule. And no criticism of Kennedy would be complete without the obligatory mention of Chappaquiddick. Any other Senator with this record would be rapidly consigned to life outside of the public domain. Ted Kennedy is treated as a hero, despite his many flaws.

And it shouldn’t be a revelation to anyone that the reason why those glaring flaws are overlooked is because of his family name. Lacking the charisma of one brother and the political acumen of another, he is pretty much the shallow end of the Kennedy clan gene pool. He only found the limelight because of the tragedies that befell his older siblings. People care about Ted Kennedy because of his surname and because of his brothers. It is not a personal thing, it is simply the natural extension of the unpleasant nepotism that tars so much of modern American Politics.

Look at the current election. Obama’s fight against Clinton has at least stopped (unless something goes badly wrong) the US from having Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton in the White House. So what do people do? Start talking about the ridiculously named Chelsea Clinton making a run for the White House in eight years. The Bush dynasty seems to have been (temporarily) stopped from achieving further power – but as soon as Dubya is out of the White House, memories of his misrule will fade and the talk of Jeb – or some other moron with Bush for a surname – in the White House will start. This website, presumably intended as satire, has more than a ring of truth to it.

Nepotism is a signpost of the death of democracy – that the talent pool of politicians has become so woefully shallow that people with a surname that harks back to better times is the way to go. It may be difficult for people in the UK to understand just how bad this is for democracy. But look at it this way: imagine if people were seriously talking about Euan Blair as a future Prime Minister. How pissed off would everyone be, given it took us ten years to be rid of his twat of a father? Even worse, imagine if the off spring of Gordon Brown were credible future leaders in this country. The thought sends shivers down my spine.

So America should stop thinking in terms of Kennedys, or Bushes, or Clintons. They should look for people whose main claim to power is more than simply being the spawn of or spouse to someone who was once in power. Kennedy’s illness should be the starting point of this – he should be allowed to heal in private, away from the glaring gaze of the media that focuses on him purely because of his name.

Election 2008: The Rage

Apparently John McCain suffers from “uncontrollable fits of rage”. Call me old fashioned, call me a party pooper, but “uncontrollable fits of rage” and “running for President” are not good bedfellows. In fact, hearing the phrase “uncontrollable fits of rage of the President of the USA” is one of those phrases you never want to hear. Like “the prognosis is not good”, “I think you’re a lovely person but…” and “don’t worry, it will grow back.”

Part of me thinks that this story should be publicised as much as possible in the USA, so the voters know they might be electing an angry man who is not in control of himself. But the other part of me knows that it wouldn’t make a blind bit of difference to the electorate. Such is the tribal nature of party politics in (not just) the USA that Republicans will still vote for McCain using the logic “well, he may be a raging maniac, but at least he is our raging maniac.”

Leaving us all to dread the day when, if McCain does manage to beat Obama, that he comes into the Oval Office in a stinker of a mood, and looks for which nation state he should take his rage out on today.

Iowa, 2008

There will be an election in a few days time. Not in Pakistan, it seems, but rather the Iowa caucus in, well, Iowa. For anyone who doesn’t understand the way the US election system works, it must be faintly bemusing to see a small number of US voters going to the polls 11 months before the Presidential Election actually happens. But the Iowa caucus is crucial. And more for the Republicans than for the Democrats.

Those vying for the Democratic nomination this time out are quite middle of the road for their party. On the one hand, you have the experienced but also the charisma vacuum that is Hilary Clinton. And then on the other side you have the audacity of hope but paucity of policy, experience and maturity that comes with Barack Obama. Actually, if you combined the two together, you would probably have a very interesting ticket. Any road, you certainly don’t have anyone as extreme and unelectable as Howard Dean running for the Democrats this time.

The Republicans don’t quite have the same strengths when you review the front runners for their nomination. On the one hand you have the charming but terrifyingly loopy Mike Huckabee. On the other hand you have the charmless and moronic Mitt Romney. Both could be classed as religious fundamentalists, both are shit choices if the US wants to recover from the disaster of the Bush years. Between them, though, they have 32.3% of the Republican votes. Sure, Guiliani is ahead – but is beating Huckabee by just 1 point in some polls. McCain – once the presumptive nominee and the most experienced of all those candidates running – is behind Huckabee and is struggling to better Romney – in some cases he is ahead by just 0.7%, in others he is behind. You could take some comfort in the fact that Guiliani is ahead, but it is worrying that he is not much, much further ahead. And there is always the danger in a caucus or primary of an upset victory – hell, even a victory can be considered not strong enough for a sitting President to continue. Neither Guiliani nor McCain are likely to win an upset victory, and the danger of a loss of momentum (and with it the election) is palpable.

As I’ve mentioned before, this is a crucial election for the US. The electorate will need to decide which moderate candidate is best placed to repair the damage done by the eight terrible years of the Bush administration. And that choice will be far more worthwhile if the electorate can choose between a moderate Republican and a moderate Democrat rather than between a Democrat and a Christian fundamentalist. I’ll be watching the Iowa caucus with a lot of interest and more than a little concern, because those few voters who decide the Republican caucus could be contributing to who will become the most powerful person in the world.