The US votes for something different

The Democrats are about to get their nose bloodied, Obama will no longer be able to defer to Congress to write his legislation for him.   He wont be able to increase spending again.  He wont be able to increase taxes.   In other words, he wont be able to spend his way out of trouble.

Yet they wont get it.   

"Though it has been typically misrepresented by the liberal media as a rattlers’ nest of gun-toting fruitcakes who want to ban masturbation and abortion, it is, of course, nothing of the kind. It is – whatever the increasingly redundant Moonbat may claim – a genuine grass roots movement inspired by the one great political cause truly worth fighting and dying for: the cause of liberty. " says James Delingpole in the Daily Telegraph.

The Tea Party is a libertarian inspired movement, which has the backing of more than a few conservatives.   Yes there are some wingnuts, but the Democrats are not without their share of the same. 

Toby Harnden in the Daily Telegraph has written what he thinks will be the top 10 excuses for losing.

1.   Opponents (or enemies) don't believe in science or facts.  They are stupid.

2.   Democrats have been gutless and haven't defended their "amazing achievements" well enough.

3.   Democrats did the right thing, even though it is unpopular (oh yes, really hard decisions to spend more money they didn't have).

4.   It's history, you always lose somewhat after 2 years.  Nothing new.

5.   Democrats were too moderate, not enough change.   Not enough government.

6.   Democrats have communicated badly.  It's about marketing.

7.   Evil big business and foreign (remember these are people who name others as racist) money is feeding the enemy.  They aren't real Americans looking after real Americans.

8.   Racism.  Why else would you oppose a Black President? 

9.   The media is to blame, especially evil Fox News.   It does a lousy job.  It didn't give Obama an easy run at all did it?

10. It's Bush again.  Yes all that small government rhetoric, so common wasn't it?

Obama is desperate to increase turnout by his core of youth, Latino and Black voters, but he isn't inspiring.   Instead of preaching hope, he is preaching fear, based on at best misunderstanding, at worst lies.   Harnden says of Obama "at its core, his message is one of promoting what Margaret Thatcher called the "nanny state" at home and Wilsonian internationalism abroad.  The problem last time was that Obama DID express hope and seemed to embody something different, but what wasn't clear to many was what it meant - it didn't mean an end to pork barreling, it meant more spending, more taxes and no limits on what government was prepared to do.   This has scared people, they fear the world's biggest economy is being hamstrung by being the world's biggest debtor nation, and that free enterprise and free markets aren't important anymore.

The Tea Party is saying to hell with you all, but has managed to inspire enough Republicans to its cause.  

What will happen?  Well Congress wont be quite the same again.  It wont be a matter of Republican majorities back to their old ways, but it also wont be a Congress ready to compromise.   

Indeed, objectivist Harry Binswanger reckons that Republicans should be favoured across the board because the Tea Party has already taken over the political initiative in the party.   In other words, the Republicans will not be in a position to resist the energy and determination of the Tea Party.

It will mean gridlock, as a leftwing President faces a libertarian/conservative House, and a hung Senate.  

It has inspired much comment, as James Delingpole's article shows with over 1000 comments, many from disgruntled British Marxists who want to treat Americans as either stupid or having been duped. 

He describes elegantly the problem:

"in the last 80 or more years – and not just in the US but throughout the Western world – government has forgotten its purpose. It has now grown so arrogant and swollen as to believe its job is to shape and improve and generally interfere with our lives. And it’s not. Government’s job is to act as our humble servant."

He even mentions New Zealand as among one of the countries maintaining this philosophy:

"Wherever you go, even if it’s somewhere run by a notionally “conservative” administration, the malaise you will encounter is much the same: a system of governance predicated on the notion that the state’s function is not merely to uphold property rights, maintain equality before the law and defend borders, but perpetually to meddle with its citizens’ lives in order supposedly to make their existence more fair, more safe, more eco-friendly, more healthy. And always the result is the same: more taxation, more regulation, less freedom. Less “fairness” too, of course."

Exactly! You can see it in the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition in the UK, the National-ACT-Maori-Dunne coalition in NZ, and you could see it in the former Howard administration in Australia.  Meet your new boss, same as the old boss, bossing you about, just with a different bitter taste.

Government has been growing barely checked, but as he says:

"With Hitler and Stalin it was easy: the enemy was plain in view. Today’s encroaching tyranny is an of altogether more subtle, slippery variety. It takes the form of the steady “engrenage” – ratcheting – of EU legislation; of the stealthy removal of property rights and personal liberty under the UN’s Agenda 21; of the eco-legislation created by democratically unaccountable bodies like America’s Environmental Protection Agency".

The future starts tomorrow, in the USA.  For Obama will have been stopped in his tracks, and the next step is to carefully find the right Presidential candidate (it is not Palin by any stretch), and for the Tea Party to push on.   For all the next two years will mean is stasis, not progress, so the Tea Party needs to maintain momentum at the local, state and federal levels.

It angers and distresses the left, they will pull out all the stops to portray it as a war against the poor, or driven by rich who are painted like how Stalin described the Kulaks, or the left's old fashioned xenophobia will come out.   They will seek to scare minorities that it is racist or sexist, frighten the poor and the elderly, claim environmental armageddon, and want to not offend anyone (except those who disagree).   Because when you give people back their own money, take away the laws that tell them what to do, give them back their property rights, and make free choice and persuasion the tools protected by government - not regulation, tax and spending - then those who don't like people's choices and do like other people's money will get upset.

Because the future wont be about the initiation of force, but about the power of argument, of convincing individuals to act differently, to spend their money differently.  

Now that is an audacity of hope.

Is the US about to experience a minor revolution?

Janet Daley in the Sunday Telegraph thinks the mid-term elections might just mean that.

"It was widely known in Europe that the American Left hated George Bush (and even more, Dick Cheney) because of his military adventurism. What was less understood was that the Right disliked him almost as much for selling the pass over government spending, bailing out the banks, and failing to keep faith with the fundamental Republican principle of containing the power of central government. So the Republicans are, if anything, as much in revolt against the establishment within their own party as they are against the Democrats. " 

The sheer simple ignorance of many to think this is simply another swing away from the Democrats to the Republicans.  It is something rather different..

 
"One of the more electorally far-reaching effects of this is that Republicanism could become the home once again of a plausible political and economic programme, rather than simply an outpost for those who seem to reject many of the features of modern life. The gun-toters and gay-bashers and pro-lifers may have jumped aboard the bandwagon, and Sarah Palin may be frantically attaching herself to the parade, but this is not their show: the Tea Party protests began (as their name suggests) as a campaign against high taxation and the illegitimate intrusiveness of federal powers. That is what they are still about"

Quite right.  It is not something to fear, it will not match either Bush era, and could be far more useful than the Reagan Administration in shrinking the state.

Obama doesn't know what to do with it.  So he is playing the game of saying it is a repeat of the Bush years on offer.  He is so wrong.  The Tea Party is not about more government, it is about less.  It isn't about trusting politicians to effect change, but about getting politicians out of the way.  The problem Obama has (and most Democrats) is that this simply does not compute - their brains don't understand that they are the problem, their politics and their solutions are not what is wanted.   That what people want is government to stop picking winners, stop supporting losers, to stop increasing the Federal debt and to pay less tax.  They actually do believe people should reap the rewards of their efforts, and bear the consequences of their losses, and that people are inherently benevolent and will look after each other without the state.

If Obama faces both the House and the Senate, controlled by individuals who believe this, then his philosophy will face complete gridlock.   The big question that will remain is who can the Republicans pick to stand for the Presidency?

What can undo the Tea Party in the US?

When the positive push for less government gets tainted and polluted by idiots like this.

Let's be clear, the Tea Party movement has core values and principles that are undoubtedly libertarian and pro-freedom.  In and of itself it promotes small government, free markets and fiscal responsibility.    The fact that some Republicans have actually taken it upon themselves to embrace what are the core values and principles of the United States of America is positive.   It is frightening the silver spoon socialists like Nancy Pelosi, who hasn't seen a problem she didn't want the government to fix.

It has perplexed President Obama who is astonished that only two years after he won off the back of a euphoria of incredibly vacuousness ("change" I'll give you "change") he isn't getting "credit" for introducing compulsory health insurance, bailing out failed banks and automotive manufacturers and spending billions of dollars that are not being raised in taxes.

The Democrats are lost between being amazed that so many Americans are embracing the small government message, disappointed that Barack Obama has not parted the sea, healed the sick, rebuilt the economy and "changed" everything for the better, so have resorted to accusing the Tea Party Movement of racism (the cheap instant slur thrown about with such abandon that it demeans those who fought true racism).

So it is an opportunity, yet it is one that is so readily squandered in the hands of Christian conservatives who seek to use the state to promote or enforce their own beliefs.

There is no majority in the United States of Christians who want the Federal Government to promote religion in schools, to regulate behaviour between consenting adults or restrict freedom of speech.   Indeed those like O'Connell who dare to question whether the United States is a secular liberal democracy will do far more damage to the Tea Party Movement than anything else.

For the "wingnut" religious right in the US will vote Republican in any case, but by associating the Tea Party Movement with religion it alienates swinging voters who find religious fundamentalism distasteful, but who agree with small government, free markets and fiscal responsibility.

Yes some imbecilic parents want their children to be taught that the pseudo-science of creationism is "as valid" scientifically as evolution.  The appropriate answer to that is to privatise education, so that schools can set themselves up as they wish and teach as they wish, so the state is not involved.   The answer is not to confuse beliefs in the supernatural with the state.

It is why the likes of Sarah Palin can not be the Presidential candidate for the Republicans in 2012.  She does not consistently believe in small government (she believes in the war on drugs for starters,and she has lobbied for earmarked pork funding from the Federal Government for Alaska) and she cannot help but get tied up in linking religion to public policy (by claiming war in Iraq was part of "god's plan").  

The Tea Party can be a great force for good, but it will be undone only by two types of people, the religious right who want it to be a proxy for an agenda that is anything BUT about reducing the size the government, (and so frightening off moderate Christians, and non-Christians to the Democrats or not voting at all) and (more likely) the sleazy, pork barrel carrying, power hungry statists who have dominated the Republican Party for decades.

Sarah Palin is in both camps, she finds it difficult to separate her religion from her publicly expressed political views and has also shown herself to be part of the establishment (as well as being far from bright).

I am wishing the Tea Party the very best in the mid-terms, if only because it will send a message to the Republican Party, and because the Democrats will have no way of confronting it other than attack (how can they embrace a movement that runs contrary to all they say and do).  However, it cannot and should not be a hostage to imbecility or those for whom the phrase "Christian theocracy" doesn't send chills down their spines.

While Obamaniacs party

Zimbabwe, which has had the same black leader since 1980 weeps. 2000 dead from cholera.

and Robert Mugabe's wife shops in Hong Kong, and beats up a Times photographer.

Could we even hope to hear a peep from Barack Obama this week about the land with the trillion dollar notes, the lowest life expectancy in the world and a murderous kleptocracy?

USA - it IS the man in the mirror

So a majority of those who voted want change.

Really?

Why do you think that one man, with a lot of power, is going to make that change? You do not live in North Korea, where everyone is taught they owe everything to one man and his son. You live in a country where life is what YOU make it.

If you want to change your community, you do something about it. Use YOUR money, your time, why do you think the Federal Government would be more effective?

If you want everyone to have health care, what are YOU doing about it? Why don't you sponsor another family to have health insurance, or is it better for the Federal Government to force you to do it?

If you want to be better off, what are YOU doing about it? Retraining? Are you looking for new opportunities?

Is the Federal Government in your way, or does it help you? Most of think it will help you, most of you probably didn't think how in order for it to give, it must take away.

So as much as I am loathe to quote Michael Jackson it IS about the man (and woman) in the mirror.

If you're worried about global warming, drive less, use less electricity, fly less. You can choose to do that. If you're worried about people less fortunate than yourself, give them money, work for a charity, do something direct - voting is possibly the most useless thing you can do.

The Federal Government can change a lot - it can spend more of your money, it can withdraw from the world, it can cease to give a damn about what happens in other countries. However if you want your life to change, it's up to you - if you spend your life worshipping the idea that someone else is your saviour, then don't be surprised when nothing changes the way you want it. Because you handed him the power to change.

Castro on US elections

Castro writes in the official Cuban state newspaper (there is no other kind) Granma about how he prefers Obama.

Interesting to wonder why he thinks it is ok for Americans to get to choose their President, but he has always denied Cubans that same right.

So what now USA?

Barack Obama is President elect. He has been elected on a wave of enthusiasm by young people, African Americans and people hyped up on a campaign of slogans and promises of a better future.

It is difficult to belittle how important Obama's success is to many African Americans who lived through appalling bigotry only a generation ago. If they now feel they can participate in the political process, that may well be nothing other than a good thing. Accusations that the USA does not have a system that offers opportunity can be put to one side.

However Obama has promised much, on the basis that government can deliver economic recovery, jobs, health care and a better society. He has promised cheap energy, he has promised a new foreign policy that makes friends abroad.

Now he will be expected to deliver - with a majority Democrat Congress.

Will he discover how hard it is to get government to deliver anything? Will his supporters learn that relying on government to save them is a lost cause?

Hopes have been raised high - on the basis of little more than Obama being a star. How will his groupies react when they find he can't deliver?

Record turnout in US election

The Daily Telegraph is predicting 65% turnout, well above that of 55% in 2004, 51% in 2000, 49% in 1996.

That is a good thing.

It's either a massive turnout for the rockstar Obama, or a massive turnout to reject him. Methinks the former.

Most African Americans are, understandably, voting for the candidate who represents their aspiration. However, it is remarkably sad that beyond that, so many are choosing based on style - and that goes for both sides. Substance is sadly lacking.

UK press mostly cheering for Obama

The lead in the Times says the campaign has been dignified "This is a contest that could so easily have featured distasteful hints about race or nasty gibes about age. It could have centred on the outlandish remarks of Obama's pastor the Rev Wright or his occasional meeting with the terrorist William Ayers. Instead Senator McCain has shown admirable restraint, Senator Obama admirable dignity."

The Times also notes the worst endorsements the candidates ever got. McCain's must be the KKK, whereas Obama's would be Hamas.

Mick Brown in the Daily Telegraph talks of how Obama won so many over.

Simon Heffer in the Daily Telegraph warns that McCain is the safer option regarding foreign policy. "Mr Obama is a confection; he is an image, a brand, a lifestyle. He has the talents of the thespian, less obviously those of the executive." "Mr McCain, who understands well how foreign powers and military operations work, would have a much more informed discussion with his advisers. Mr Obama would be starting from a position of near total ignorance, and on a matter of life and death."

The lead in the Daily Telegraph is concerned about Obama "What we do know of his policies is not encouraging - higher taxes, protectionism, a bigger role for the state, particularly in health-care. For those who believe that the United States' greatest strength - from which the whole world benefits - is the can-do individualism that fuels its boisterous free market economy, Mr Obama presents a worrying prospect." and McCain has blundered badly "this time round he has allowed himself to be diverted into a negative game-plan that combines ugly ad hominem attacks on Mr Obama with the specious claim that only the Republicans represent "real America". So on balance prefers McCain "His ill-considered choice of running mate appeared not only wilful but also defeatist because it seemed designed simply to shore up the Republican base, rather than reach out to a wider electorate. Yet on the big issues, Mr McCain is by far the sounder candidate. He is a tax cutter, a believer in small government, a zealot for free trade. He may have made something of a fool of himself with his grandstanding during the banking crisis, but he was not alone in that (though Mr Obama wisely kept his counsel)."

Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian has been seduced by the star "If voters reject McCain today they will also be rejecting that McCarthyite brand of politics, embracing Obama's insistence that, at a time when the problems facing America are so big, it makes no sense that its politics are so small"

Clintonite Sydney Blumenthal in the Guardian talks about the end of the Republican era, though says next to nothing about Obama, and talks utter nonsense about the US economy.

Johann Hari in the Independent says this is about transformation. Transcendence of race (true), the end of passive government (it never existed), the end of the culture war of the conservatives vs everyone else (perhaps), the end of US unilateralism (probably not). Again another Obama fan.

The lead in the Independent fawns over Obama. "Indisputably, he has also had a gentler ride from the media than Mr McCain. But gifted politicians make their own success. Over the past two gruelling years, we have learnt a great deal about Mr Obama. He is formidably intelligent."

The Daily Mail bemoans the BBC sending 175 people to the USA to cover the election, although I wonder how much coverage the BBC is onselling at a profit.

What the Presidential candidates DIDN'T talk about

- China
- Somalia
- Food
- Illegal immigration
- Drug gang violence in Mexico

So says Foreign Policy and it is concerned that there has been so little on these.
In terms of where the candidates stand:

Virtually no difference on China - both will engage, both concerned about debt owed to China, both concerned about human rights.

Virtually no policy on Somalia - concerning, since it is a failed state, a haven for Islamists, a hell for its residents (you can't be a citizen of a non-existent state), and a location of US intervention disaster from the 1990s, which happened under the Clinton Administration. Yes I know you'd forgotten that. Obama did too.

Big difference on food. Obama supports subsidies for biofuels, McCain opposes them. They are a significant contributor to the increase in food prices. Obama also supports higher agricultural protectionism, McCain opposes it.

Virtually no difference on illegal immigration - Obama wants immigrants to be legal, McCain wants a secure border. Most voters get heated up about this issue, which frankly isn't where McCain is at personally.

Virtually no difference on the war on drugs - Both praised the Mexican government's crackdown on the drugs trade, despite 4,000 lives being lost and the violence growing. As noted in the article, the US government subsidies the Mexican government's war on drugs, and US citizens buy the drugs, and sell the firearms used in the war - on both sides. This policy failure is not something either side will touch - because regardless of the blood spilt, being soft on drugs doesn't win votes.

Braindead presidential election

US Presidential elections are remarkable experiences. The wonderful primaries give a chance for the public to choose the candidates they think best represent them and give their parties a chance to win. It is a two party system, and only with enormous money can a third party candidate be a spoiler. Ross Perot did this in 1992 and 1996, Ralph Nader can't be said to have done it in 2000, even though if they who voted for him had gone for Gore, history would have been different.

So it is between two big parties, with long, distinguished and not so distinguished histories. Few now see in the Democratic Party the party of Thomas Jefferson, or indeed the party of southern segregation which it was until Lyndon Johnson turned his back on all that. Few African Americans probably know the Republicans freed the slaves, because it was the Democrats that bravely confronted segregation in the 1960s and handed over a core constituency to the Republicans - the south.

In a world of asinine urges to split arguments into two - it is all too easy for the media and the public to paint both major US parties as miles apart, as representing two very different visions of the future. In truth both are very broad churches. The stereotype of the Democrats being the party of social liberalism and secularism is as inaccurate as saying the Republicans are conservative evangelicals. Both are right and wrong. Both are full of people who despise freedom, and reject science. It's just that the Democrats will prefer this on economic matters, and reject science on the environment, whereas Republicans prefer regulating social matters, and reject science on education and ethical issues. Generally speaking.

So what of Barack Obama and John McCain?

Barack Obama has inspired millions, a good part of that is because of race. Few can deny the importance that having a major party Presidential candidate who is part African American shows how far the USA has come in a couple of generations. That will, understandably, motivate almost all African-Americans to vote for him, but beyond that there is little positive to vote for. Obama has been propelled to where he is because he has star qualities. He looks good, he speaks good, what he says isn't important except you hear the same words again "change", "bring together", "new beginning". He talks about a different politics, but nothing he sells is different. He's a leftwing Democrat who has never steered away from that course. That none of this has had more than cursory attention from the bulk of the US media is scandalous. If John McCain had spent time promoting ultranationalist causes, there is little doubt it would have been an issue.

Obama's foreign policy is essentially to talk to everyone, and focus on Afghanistan rather than Iraq. He'll be liked internationally and he'll be tested, by the enemies of the USA, and that will be the supreme test - to see if he hesitates or can be decisive to take military action when required. Obama's domestic policy is also nothing new. Tax cuts for many, tax hikes for "the rich", he wants to grow the Federal Government with umpteen new spending promises and to radically reform health care. He offers the status quo on social security and education. He has a consistent record of supporting "pork barrel" subsidies and programmes.

Change you can believe in? Hardly.

Obama's chief campaign message has been change, it doesn't look like anything not tried before. Obama has also campaigned blaming the economic crisis on the Bush Administration, which he must know is a lie - as the conditions for the crisis go well beyond Bush. That's the old politics that Obama happily taps into, with little criticism from the media.

You see Obama is Hollywood, and the USA loves Hollywood.

McCain is an old hand, he had the potential to really mean change. He was right about the surge in Iraq, and he could do the same in Afghanistan. He believes in fiscal prudence, cutting spending, opposing any "pork" and cutting taxes. He believes in free trade, critical at this time of global recession, and he doesn't think the answer to every problem is government. Obama is friendlier towards government being the solution.

However McCain has done appallingly for several reasons. He has tried to throw dirt at Obama when the media wouldn't play ball, although some of the dirt is well worth looking into (Jeremiah Wright). He has made umpteen blunders in front of the camera and has not sold himself on a confident platform of less government. Worst of all he failed to differentiate himself from the White House financial bailout plan, which would have given him leverage and credentials on small government and opposing "pork". He played a card, that the party pressured him into, by accepting Sarah Palin as his running mate, which scared a majority of voters away. Palin is feisty and curious, but her ignorance is palpable. She'll fire up some on the religious right, many who she will fire up match her ignorance, most opposing her see a woman who shouldn't be near the White House. She was, on balance, a wrong move - because she performed so badly. McCain is now fighting back, with great difficulty. The damage has been done. McCain has sought to fire up the Republican base - which is as banal as ever. This isn't the real McCain, it is sad that he has had to resort to this, instead of attacking Obama in the centre battleground.

As a libertarian, both major parties turn me away. The Democrats are the repositary of the left, and the environmentalist movements in the US. I've seen how appallingly they have misgoverned cities, and spread the envy message throughout the country. They have played the xenophobic card, differently from Republicans. They think government is the solution and they listen, too intently, to the pseudo science of the environmentalist movement, and the identity politics of the left. They continue to oppose school choice. The Republicans are a true conservative party, containing far more bigoted banal Christian halfwits than the Democrats - the type who think the planet is a few thousand years old, that Darwin was wrong and few things should get you more worked up than a homosexual (!). They happily censor away, and like to treat non-Christians with suspicion and science if it is to interfere with their literal interpretation of the Bible. The Republicans do have a liberal small government side, but sadly it isn't dominant.

Both being defeated would please me, but for now one has to win.

On foreign policy it is a closer run race than it was some months ago. Obama has stopped talking about withdrawing from Iraq quickly, and has moderated his speech about talking to the enemies of the USA. Biden strengthens Obama's ticket on foreign policy. Palin weaken's McCain's. McCain would be comforting on foreign policy and a strong advocate for a new open trade round at the WTO. That could help spur on global recovery, something I see Obama being far less enthusiatic about. McCain after all votes against protectionism and subsidies, Obama has voted for them. On security matters, Israel would feel more comfortable with McCain, but I don't doubt the rest of the world would embrace him, they would see a USA willing to compromise - which on too many things would be unthinkably wrong.

On domestic policy Obama wants big government, McCain has always wanted less before, but who knows now.

The worst that can happen under McCain is that he passes away and Palin becomes President, a scary thought. However, beyond that McCain may simply spend his term vetoing budgets because the Democrats keep trying on new spending.

The worst that can happen under Obama is that he negotiates away Iraq, forces Israel to batten down the hatches with less support, and dramatically grows the federal government - FDR style. He isolates the USA with trade protectionism, and directs the economy.

For McCain the best that can be said is similar to Lindsay Perigo's comment that voting for McCain is about opposing Obama as it:

"may buy the country some time: time to reverse its slide into a European-style 'social democracy' - i.e., full-blown collectivist tyranny based on the airheaded consent of the tyrannized. For that to happen, not just Senator McCain and Governor Palin but millions more Americans need to snap out of their addled airhead postmodern stupor and acquaint themselves with Ayn Rand"

Some think it is better to smash and punish the Republicans because of much incompetence since 2000. I can empathise with that view, but I believe it is mistaken - the world needs decisiveness on foreign policy, a free trade President and a President who will say no to more government spending. That is NOT Barack Obama, and it might just be John McCain. McCain will prove to Republicans that they can win if they choose a moderately liberal supporter of less government. It will prove to Democrats that an agenda of more government is not enough to win. However it is more than that.

The USA deserves better than a man winning the Presidency because he is a star. Obama's celebrity status may say that an African-American could be elected President, but it also says that style wins over substance. Few who support Obama are likely to be able to say what "change" he will bring. Few have really put Obama's policies under the spotlight, few have asked him serious questions about his inconsistencies, and how he thinks spending taxpayers' children's taxes will help. It is truly the "airhead" politics as Perigo describes them - where choosing a radical leftwing pastor was dismissed as being a mistake, as if it didn't reflect on Obama's philosophy. Where a campaign of pure banality is treated as being some great revolution.

That is why Americans should reject Obama/Biden in favour of McCain/Palin. John McCain has made many mistakes, he has floundered and disappointed, almost painfully his campaign has been an appalling series of mistakes. Sarah Palin may be one of his biggest ones. However, he is, for now, the safer pair of hands compared to Obama. John McCain wont be a great President, but he would be one who could contain a Democrat led Congress, who could be a competent Commander in Chief, and would not seek government solutions to every problem. He could lead a new WTO round with some significant liberalisation from the USA to kickstart the global economy. He could be a change.

I know an Obama loss might trouble millions, and may even spark anger from disappointment, but that is not a reason to vote for him. Whoever wins the Presidency has to handle Al Qaeda, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea, all decisively, I'll pick the man of experience over the man of slogans. As much as McCain's campaigning appalls, as much as Sarah Palin grates, and as much as McCain has looked tired, and his approach to the financial crisis wrong, he is the better choice. A vote for a McCain is a vote for the less government option, and a vote against the anointed believer in wealth redistribution, massive growth in the federal government and a campaign of banality.

Obama or McCain ARI?

It must be troubling them.

The Ayn Rand Institute in 2004 backed John Kerry, in 2000 backed Al Gore.

So does ARI pick the rather leftwing, softer foreign policy of Obama, or the cuddling up to evangelicals centrist tougher foreign policy of McCain?

At the moment it appears to be a curse on both houses.

The Objectivist Center is saying nothing either, but also damning of Obama and McCain.

Lindsay Perigo has said a vote for McCain would be "a vote against Obama bin Biden, and may buy the country some time: time to reverse its slide into a European-style 'social democracy' - i.e., full-blown collectivist tyranny based on the airheaded consent of the tyrannized. For that to happen, not just Senator McCain and Governor Palin but millions more Americans need to snap out of their addled airhead postmodern stupor and acquaint themselves with Ayn Rand".

I'll be posting my verdict on the US Presidential candidates shortly.

McCain not tortured? Who can you believe?

I'm not inclined to fully believe the story of John McCain's jail director - Tran Trong Duyet - from the Vietnam War who claims "I never tortured or mistreated the PoWs and nor did my staff" which comes from an article in the Times by Leo Lewis.

John McCain does, of course, have every incentive for hyperbole, but so do those interviewed in the article, including nurse Nguyen Thi Thanh who looked after him. It seems Leo Lewis has forgotten that Vietnam remains a one-party state, with the communist party firmly in power. Those who looked after him are hardly going to confess to torture or mistreatment, and indeed the regime itself does not admit to how it currently treats political prisoners.

In the report there is nothing much other than a statement that “I never tortured or mistreated the PoWs and nor did my staff" and " He was very brave, very manly, he dared to argue with me and he was very intelligent. But all the talk of being tortured is for the sake of votes". In response "The McCain campaign refused to comment on the claims yesterday."

Now it would have been more helpful had others who stayed there spoken up, it would have been even more helpful if others who were on guard were talked to, off the record. However no, we just have a claim by those living and who fought and worked for a communist insurgency that they never tortured, against those who said they did. It's not convincing.

Economist gives McCain one last chance

The Lexington column in this week's Economist gives John McCain some advice. I can only hope he takes it.

Basically it reminds us that Reagan was 8 points behind Carter 10 days before the 1980 election. Tells him what not to do (forget dumb populism, forget attacking Obama's links to dodgy people) and to look forward in three ways:

1) Obama is one of the least business-friendly Democrats in a generation. Obama has been close to the union movement, which has strongly supported his campaign. It is calling for the end to secret ballots and the removal of laws prohibiting closed shops. During these times of low business confidence this is the last the USA needs, and Obama's credentials for letting business be free are low.

2) Having one party control the Presidency and both houses of Congress is not preferable if you want to ensure accountable government. McCain could usefully veto pork barrel budgetary matters, but most importantly Americans have rarely allowed one party to control both legislatures and the White House.

3) Obama has never taken on his own party, or even seriously tried. As a Senator he has voted Democrat 97% of the time, an astonishing result. McCain is known to be a maverick in his own party. The odds are Obama could be the vehicle for the most leftwing administration since the 1960s. Obama has not at all demonstrated that he can be a maverick and confront the mainstream of his party - defeating Hilary Clinton was a personal not a philosophical mission.

McCain can fight a respectable campaign and could, on balance, win, just. However he is running out of time, and chances.

Powell and Hitchens nailing more into McCain's campaign coffin

The Sunday Telegraph reports that long standing Republican, former US Secretary of State Colin Powell is endorsing Barack Obama. Powell talked of Obama's "ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America". This contrasts with McCain's lacklustre approach to the economy "Almost every day he had a different approach to the problems we were having". I suspect Powell is looking to be part of the incoming administration, and indeed it may be the case that if an Obama victory happens we would all be better off if Powell was part of it.

Meanwhile, strong supporter of the war to topple Saddam Hussein, writer Christopher Hitchens is also backing Obama in his Slate column. Hitchens loathes the Clintons, and is no friend of Bush, but backed Bush over Iraq. He feels pity for McCain's performance:

"Anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear had to feel sorry for the old lion on his last outing and wish that he could be taken somewhere soothing and restful before the night was out."

It appears that McCain's selection of Sarah Palin has been the death knell of McCain's credibility to Hitchens:

"It turns out that none of her early claims to political courage was founded in fact, and it further turns out that some of the untested rumors about her—her vindictiveness in local quarrels, her bizarre religious and political affiliations—were very well-founded, indeed. Moreover, given the nasty and lowly task of stirring up the whack-job fringe of the party's right wing and of recycling patent falsehoods about Obama's position on Afghanistan, she has drawn upon the only talent that she apparently possesses."

So, Hitchens supporting the man who opposed the war in Iraq? Well he believes Obama can be convinced to change, Hitchens is no "true believer":

"I used to call myself a single-issue voter on the essential question of defending civilization against its terrorist enemies and their totalitarian protectors, and on that "issue" I hope I can continue to expose and oppose any ambiguity. Obama is greatly overrated in my opinion, but the Obama-Biden ticket is not a capitulationist one, even if it does accept the support of the surrender faction, and it does show some signs of being able and willing to profit from experience. With McCain, the "experience" is subject to sharply diminishing returns, as is the rest of him, and with Palin the very word itself is a sick joke."

Only a few weeks ago Hitchens called Obama "vapid, hesitant and gutless" in that he doesn't ask questions straight and clear. I suspect Hitchens has largely been too disappointed by McCain and angered by Palin to go anywhere else.

Now I want to know what the Ayn Rand Institute thinks. I'm betting it will back Obama too. It's backed Kerry and Gore in the last two elections.

Tragic failure of the McCain campaign

John McCain has sadly failed to demonstrate positively why he should be elected President of the United States. I say sadly because he is quite a man in and of himself. He is not of the socially conservative wing of the Republican Party, but unfortunately those who aren’t don’t get agitated enough to propel that party along.

John McCain could have campaigned as himself, a man who is deeply committed to the USA, committed to its security and opposed both in word and deed to the existential threats made upon it over his lifetime. At one point it was Marxism-Leninism, today it is Islamist led terrorism. He took his own principled, and unpopular stance in favour of overthrowing the murderous gangster Hussein regime, and in favour of the surge which has turned the tide of the Iraqi insurgency and granted Iraqis the peace and freedom they should have had after the fall of Hussein – but failed to do so because of the Bush Administration’s crass errors. The Middle East and the world are a safer place because of that.

Beyond that John McCain has been promising on two fronts domestically. Firstly he has opposed pork barrel politics in government spending, something that Barack Obama can’t ever say without his nose growing. The use of pork, a cancer of theft and corruption that infests so much of the US body politic, is something that war deserves to be waged on. A McCain Presidency could, at least, veto pork wherever it came up, to tame a Democrat dominated Congress. Not that the Republicans are averse to some pork – but McCain himself is. Finally, McCain’s principled belief in free and open trade has been a beacon of reason in a world where protectionism is becoming de rigueur once more, led by the irrational response of developing countries to high food prices, whilst Europe remains in a statist coma. A revitalised Doha round would have helped contribute to a global recovery.

There are many reasons to criticise McCain. His desire to move forward on health care reform while well intentioned has been misguided, although shifting tax preferences for private health insurance from employers to individuals would do wonders to shift this regulated market to one of personal responsibility. He is patently incapable of moving his party to a more liberal stance on individual freedom issues. His performance in the Presidential debates has been stilted and unfortunate, Obama is clearly the better speaker, and Obama also has the advantage of believing in what he says – even though most of what he says is drivel.

McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin was thought by some, including myself, to be inspired from a political point of view, even though on the face of it she didn’t offer much from my perspective. No doubt the selection of Palin was hoped to attract three different constituencies, a strategy that has backfired in several ways.

Palin was first and foremost intended to fire up the conservative Christian base – a base that re-elected George W. Bush in 2004, and a base that has felt distinctly neglected by the Republican primaries when both Mitt Romney and more importantly Mike Huckabee looked unlikely contenders. As an evangelical, it was thought Palin could connect with those voters and give them a reason to back the far more secular talking McCain. Secondly, it was hoped Palin being a woman would help swing middle America female voters who may have backed Hilary Clinton (and less enchanted with Barack Obama). As the only woman on a ticket, this on itself would attract attention. Thirdly, her youth was seen as a contrast to his age, almost a mirror image of the Obama-Biden camp.

She gained media attention, but beyond the superficial and the curiosity value Palin has demonstrated one thing overall – her inexperience. The Vice Presidential role is largely a symbolic one, I say largely because it is about stepping in if the President is incapable of acting – something that admittedly didn’t stop Americans voting for George Bush senior when he had the idiot Dan Quayle running with him. However, Palin has come across as a fool – indeed one that takes the stereotypes of insular, unworldly and ignorant and shows them up to be true. To talk of foreign policy experience because Alaska is close to Russia – to not be able to name a single newspaper she relies on for international news (even if she didn’t read it) – this is not someone that many Americans, including most definitely many women and young people want one step away from the ability to wage war with nuclear weapons.

Palin’s conservatism is unsurprising – perhaps the saddest tragedy of US culture today is the yawning gap between the closed minded authoritarian Puritanism of the conservative right, and the moral equivalency, sacrifice worship, anti-science statist identity politics of the so called “liberal” left. One side preaching God, the other side preaching the environment, collective identity and “all cultures are as good as each other”. One side preaching family, hard work and co-operative communities, another side preaching non-discrimination, respect for individualism and secularism.

Barack Obama is likely to win not because he offers anything substantial to the US voting public. He doesn’t. He is an image and a brand, with hype based on his race, his speaking style and his slogan of “change”. On foreign policy he is keen on putting more effort into Afghanistan, whilst pulling out of Iraq, and talking to “everyone” (although his position on what he’d say is far from clear). Domestically he believes in tax cuts for the “middle class” and tax increases for the “rich”, whilst he has an enormous plan for pork, subsidies and government spending that is understandable given his left wing political roots. He is suspicious of free trade, and his response to the global financial crisis is to inanely say it’s Bush’s fault. Meanwhile, he wants to force the health insurance industry to accept everyone regardless of risk.

He has fired up the Democratic base because of his short centre-left credentials, his race, and his inspirational way of speaking (without saying very much at all). That in itself should ensure his victory.

McCain’s remaining chance is small. He can’t ditch Palin and choose another. He can’t undertake the TV debates again, but he can be himself. He can talk about how the USA built its wealth on freedom, markets and business not government. He can talk about his consistent opposition to government programmes and spending at a time of recession, against Obama’s desire to spend his way out of the recession. He can talk about his strong determination to protect the national security of the USA, and willingness to be firm against its enemies, and to seek peace but not at any cost – and not at the cost of sacrificing Iraq to Islamism.

It is hard to fight with a media who is smitten with style over substance, who sees the relatively young multi-ethnic Obama as being more than what he is – and has little time for negative attacks on him – contrast its treatment of the Bush administration.

The campaign is not over yet – Obama could make an awful mistake, McCain could prove himself yet to be the one more Americans might trust, and perhaps some of Obama’s shady past could haunt him more than smiles and slogans can rebut. Whichever way the election goes it will devastate the party that loses. The question should be, at a time when the economy comes first and foreign policy a close second, who should Americans trust to lead them through this troubled time. Sadly the conclusion at the moment is that neither can offer inspiration and substance that is worth enthusiasm.

The best I can muster is that McCain appals me less than Obama - and that both appal me less than the vile Hilary Clinton. Great.

Bush couldn't get elected - 2000

For those who think McCain is finished, here is an article from Slate in 2000 about why Bush couldn't get elected against Gore.

(Hat Tip - Tim Blair)

US taxpayers saved, financial markets sink

The Democrats could have passed the bill on their own - to take US$700 billion from future taxpayers to bail out the foolish borrowings and foolish lendings by US banks, encouraged implicitly by a central bank that kept extending the money supply - but even they couldn't be convinced. Too many saw their constituents demanding why they should be forced to bail out Wall Street. Many more Republicans said the same, and reacted to the lies that this was the result of "8 years of economic mismanagement" as rich little leftwing Democrat Nancy Pelosi bleated. Democrats want this to be painted as the fault of Bush and the Republicans, but their hands are far from clean. This goes back before Bush and even before Clinton - it is a longstanding problem of government growth in the money supply, and the long held belief that the government will step in.

So, according to CNN the Dow Jones has plummeted 7%, it is about time to do some bargain hunting.

Obama and McCain don't know what to do. Obama is trying to make hay from it, McCain is trying to say Obama would spend even more taxpayers' money on new programmes.

The truth is both look like less than Presidential material at the moment - neither give the public confidence in the economic future. Gerald Warner in the Daily Telegraph says that as McCain and Obama both supported the package, US voters chose "none of the above" in putting huge pressure on Congress to say no.

For now the taxpayers have won the battle - the question is what the cost of that will be in the short to medium term.

Vote McCain or Obama with The Economist

The Economist has an online "vote" for the US Presidential Election through its website. The hook is you must register with the publication to vote, but that does reduce the odds of multiple registrations to vote multiple times, and anyway you should be reading the Economist on a regular basis shouldn't you?

It works in a rather interesting way. The Economist has basically classified every country in the world as a state using electoral college rules. Every country gets at least three electoral college votes, and then by population gets more. The candidate with the majority in a country gets the electoral college votes of that country.

Unsurprising, Obama is overwhelmingly ahead. In the UK it is 86% to Obama, in Australia 85%, in New Zealand 81%, China gives Obama 79% (France 90%). Only El Salvador, Slovakia and Colombia look like possible McCain territory (but many countries have few votes).

However, regardless, it was only listed in the Economist on Friday, so it should have an overwhelming response in coming weeks. Go on, cast your vote.

Clintonistas not flocking to join Obamaniacs

According to the Daily Telegraph, Hilary Clinton's pleadings for her supporters to back Obama isn't getting the reaction that was hoped for. Given the bitter campaign between the two Democrat candidates, distrust is high towards Obam. 28% of Clinton supporters in Ohio have said they will vote for McCain. Michigan and Pennsylvania, where Clinton did particularly well, could well go to McCain as a result.

I can't but help think that Clinton wouldn't mind Obama losing - as she could quietly say "told you so" and have a shot in 2012.

The latest poll of polls on CNN puts both Obama and McCain on 45% - it is a brave person who would call this election by any means.