Quote of the day

There's nothing special about Britain. You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment.

- US State Department official involved in planning Gordon Brown's visit to Washington

Oh come on guys. Talk about kicking us when we're down. We didn't need to know that in Obama's mind we rank roughly equal with Burkina Faso, not right now.

Source

Barack Obama wins election

JMP is delighted to announce that Mr Barack Obama has just formally been declared the winner of November's presidential election in the United States of America. Congress has declared that the electoral votes from that election have been counted (and remember the result depends on electoral votes, not the popular vote); Obama received 375, McCain 173.

This is something of a relief to the more cautious among us, for there are plenty of examples in US electoral history of 'faithless electors' - that is, state electors who do not cast their vote for the candidate who won their state. 158, in fact. And this isn't all odd old colonial history. As recently as 2004, a Minnesota elector, pledged to cast his vote for John Kerry, did so for John Edwards.

Anyway, it's a happy day - all over again.

Future of the American Right

"Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast..."

That description in Newsweek, by an 'angry McCain aide', of the infamous Palin shopping trip is incredibly revealing about the struggle going on for the future of the GOP. It shines a torch on the  struggle for control of the party between the shrinking socially conservative lower-middle and working class base who provide most of the Party's voting fodder, and the wealthy elite who fund it, control it and benefit most from its economic policies. The mass enthusiasm for Sarah Palin, both 'Wasilla hillbilly' and Vice-Presidential candidate, in the Republican heartlands surely poses a threat to that control. Karl Rove in particular hitched the religious right to the GOP: famously, evangelicals used to disdain participation in politics as ungodly. The strategy was a political triumph, but has it now created a monster that is beyond its control?

The point is also illustrated by who I think is the other key player in this fight, Mike Huckabee, the personable, funny, Creationist Baptist Minister and former Arkansas Governor who came second in the Republican primaries, much to most people's surprise. He is a staunch social conservative and Christian, who during the primaries issued an advert which didn't deal with politics at all; in it, he wished voters a merry Christmas instead, and said "what really matters is the celebration of the birth of Christ". Uh-huh. He is now lined up to present a show on Fox but his website certainly suggests that he still has significant political ambitions, and Marc Ambinder in the Atlantic is one of those who has identified him as a 2012 front-runner. Crucially, Huckabee's support of the Fair Tax proposal also puts him a long way away from the traditional tax-cutting Republican position; while what its practical effect would be is hotly debated, it is presented as a 'progressive' measure which effectively broadens the tax base and taxes wealth.

Ambinder, like several others, thinks that the other front-runner in 2012 will be Mitt Romney- smooth, uber-wealthy, and very much a Republican establishment figure (despite his Mormonism). If 2012 did come down on the GOP side to Romney against Huckabee, the rich Republican establishment could, if Huckabee won, lose control of the Party for a generation, and risk becoming a party entrenched in the South but unable to reach out beyond that. 

I think survival for the GOP lies in an opposite direction from both Huckabee/Palin and Romney, in embracing social liberalism, low taxation, and foreign policy hawkishness. Semi-libertarian at home (while accepting and addressing climate change) and strong on the 'war on terror' abroad would have a strong link back to Reagan and would, it seems to me, be the only way forward that would be attractive to new generations of right wing voters growing up under President Obama while not alienating - too much - its base. State out of your face and instead fighting the dual wars on climate change and terror, perhaps? (How to reconcile libertarianism and fighting climate change is for another day, but there must be clever market-based approaches to carbon capping that could be explored.) And let's face it: if the Republicans took a more liberal stance on gun control, abortion, and 'the culture wars' generally, their core Southern base would have nowhere else to go. The problem is that I know of no obvious contender to lead such a new Reaganite revolution.    

JMP Exclusive

Footage of Sarah Palin's foreign policy advisor at a recent event, together with his 'special' brother.

US election photo of the day

From Ben Smith's blog at Politico, via Harry's Place, a fascinating photo from Martinsville, Indiana (once a KKK stronghold, apparently). 

Confederate flag + Obama yard sign = landslide? 

A quick thought

With the current good pollling news, Powell's endorsement, and so on, surely the only thing that can lose Obama the election now is if the Guardian tries to persuade the voters of some key county to vote for him...

NRO bitch fest!

National Review online is one of the best and most influential American political sites, and its Corner one of the best political blogs. I don't think that's disputable, even if you don't share its neo-con world view. But the dire quality of the McCain campaign has caused some fantastic bitching and falling out there, as more and more contributors break rank to point out, for example, what an utter disaster SP is, only to be savaged by the remaining true believers. I pointed out recently that Kathleen Parker was the first to point out the obvious; now the influential David "Axis of Evil" Frum has followed suit, and is mightily pissed off about the flack he's taking for it:

I receive emails from readers every day who tell me that the only possible motive I could have for expressing doubts about the McCain ticket is my desire to attend cocktail parties, appear on TV, apply for a job in the Obama administration etc. Now I see this line of accusation appearing in the Corner too.

Let's develop this thought a little. Suppose it were true? Suppose I were indeed a venal, light-minded chaser after television appearances and social invitations. What difference would it make?

Do my correspondents (and now my Corner colleagues) truly believe that - but for my pitiful media and social ambitions - nobody in America would have noticeed that Sarah Palin cannot speak three coherent consecutive words about finance or economics?

And Christopher Buckley, son of WJ Buckley, founder of NR and a man who has the status of a saint in NRO-land, has now, marvellously, come out for Obama in the splendidly titled Daily Beast, and has been 'fatwah-ed' by the American right:

Since my Obama endorsement, Kathleen and I have become BFFs and now trade incoming hate-mails. No one has yet suggested my dear old Mum should have aborted me, but it's pretty darned angry out there in Right Wing Land. One editor at National Review--a friend of 30 years--emailed me that he thought my opinions "cretinous." One thoughtful correspondent, who feels that I have "betrayed"--the b-word has been much used in all this--my father and the conservative movement generally, said he plans to devote the rest of his life to getting people to cancel their subscriptions to National Review. But there was one bright spot: To those who wrote me to demand, "Cancel my subscription," I was able to quote the title of my father's last book, a delicious compendium of his NR "Notes and Asides": Cancel Your Own Goddam Subscription.

For those of us who enjoy reading NRO and similar, without sharing their views, it's all the most supoib entertainment.

You know, they do have a sense of humour

As the peerless Onion shows, Americans can do satire exceptionally well. Strolling around the internets the other day, I stumbled on Bush2004.com, a strikingly well-informed mock official site for that year's Presidential campaign that reminds us that blatant lying during Presidential campaigns isn't confined to this year. The second Presidential debate of that election took place on this day four years ago, during which Bush said "I don't think the Patriot Act abridges your rights at all." Bush2004.com comments -

"A stunning insight that has eluded the best legal minds to date. The only thing the state is authorized to do to us that it wasn't before the era of the Patriot Act is: (1) arrest us without cause (2) hold us indefinitely without charge (3) subject us to secret military trial (4) replace juries with military officers (5) suspend rules of evidence (6) prevent us from witnessing our own trial (7) prevent us from seeing the evidence against us (8) convict us on hearsay (9) torture us (10) execute us in secret (11) execute our friends and associates for harboring us."

Second, here's the essential Saturday Night Live Palin-Couric parody followed by the real thing. Less than three minutes of your time, and both are hysterical.

Betting news

McCain is now almost a 7 to 1 shot in a two horse race. Given the volatility of US presidential races, that's got to be worth a shot: how many people are telling pollsters that they will vote Obama who, when it comes down to it, will vote McCain? Quite a few, I reckon. I note from this old BBC story that on 5 September 2000, Al Gore was ten points ahead of Bush in the polls and pulling away. I know we're much later on in the campaign than 5 September, but even so I still found that surprising.

And, in case you missed it, a few days ago William Hill temporarily suspended taking bets on proof of the existence of alien life on the back of a run of heavy betting. Seriously. Watch the skies...

Finally: occasional commenter here j-g (who mostly can be roused to comment when I playfully point out the liberal and farsighted nature of Palin's policy on 'reproductive rights') is a renowned and skilful gambler, as well as being connected in the world of publishing. I note that the Booker prize was won, yet again, by someone other than the favourite. JMP would be interested in any comment j-g might have on this strange phenomenom of the Booker favourite never winning?

Satire is dead, killed by Hank Paulson

So where did that $7 trillion figure in the US treasury bail-out plan come from?

From Forbes.com:

"It's not based on any particular data point," a Treasury spokeswoman told Forbes.com Tuesday. "We just wanted to choose a really large number."

Really, could that be any more Onion-esque?

That US bail-out

The US Treasury's bail-out proposal to Congress makes - believe it or not - for interesting, not to say eye-watering, reading.

Have a look at section 2 for example:

Sec. 2. Purchases of Mortgage-Related Assets.

(a) Authority to Purchase.–The [Treasury] Secretary is authorized to purchase, and to make and fund commitments to purchase, on such terms and conditions as determined by the Secretary, mortgage-related assets from any financial institution having its headquarters in the United States.

How much?

Sec. 6. Maximum Amount of Authorized Purchases.

The Secretary’s authority to purchase mortgage-related assets under this Act shall be limited to $700,000,000,000 outstanding at any one time.

Lawks. So what exactly can he do?

Sec.2

....(b) Necessary Actions.–The Secretary is authorized to take such actions as the Secretary deems necessary to carry out the authorities in this Act, including, without limitation...

Crumbs. Ah, but presumably there's pretty effective oversight of the Treasury Secretary's use of his powers, right? Er, not as such:

Sec. 8. Review.

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

Hmm. As Guido said drily in the context of the UK banning of short selling, first they came for the capitalists...

Left wing women and Sarah Palin

My God but it's easy to get obsessed about Sarah Palin. Part of her fascination is the reactions she causes in others. What strikes me is how she particularly angers some women on the left who focus on her in peculiarly gender and sexual-specific ways. 

My favourite example Professor Wendy Doniger, Professor of the History of Religions at the University of Chicago, who denied, in a piece in the Washington Post, that Palin is a woman:

Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman. The Republican party's cynical calculation that because she has a womb and makes lots and lots of babies (and drives them to school! wow!) she speaks for the women of America, and will capture their hearts and their votes, has driven thousands of real women to take to their computers in outrage. She does not speak for women; she has no sympathy for the problems of other women, particularly working class women.

On Salon, Cintra Wilson goes to the other extreme and sexualises her, making her a slut -remember, this a leftwing woman making these comments about another woman because she doesn't like her politics:

Palin may have been a boost of political Viagra for the limp, bloodless GOP....she is their hardcore pornographic centerfold spread.... this Republican blowup doll  does this ideological lap dance. It is a kind of eerie coincidence that Sarah Palin is being sprung on the public at the same time as the bimbo/frat-boy titty comedy "House Bunny," which features a poster of a beautiful young lady with Playmate-style bunny ears, big, stupid eyes and her mouth hanging open like someone just punched her. Sarah Palin is the White House bunny....Sarah Palin may put out to be popular....

And of course she can't be forgiven for not aborting her last child:

What her Down syndrome baby and pregnant teenage daughter unequivocally prove, however, is that her most beloved child is the antiabortion platform that ensures her own political ambitions with the conservative right.

The de-feminising of Thatcher, especially by Spitting Image, was to her clear electoral advantage. This furious feminist assault on another populist rightwing woman is likely, it seems to me, to have a similar effect. 

Compare and contrast

In the US, what an election and what fascinating politics! There's race there, gender, class (McCain doesn't know how many houses he owns; Palin is a simple 'hockey mom' from a small town), sex (Palin again with her daughter), religion and abortion: it's all in the mix, all fiercely boiling over, and it's captivating.

In the UK, meanwhile, we have doughy faced Brown, Cameron and Clegg lining up to scrap over tedious technocratic bollocks. We're forced to get our kicks from watching our PM collapse politically and, increasingly it would seem mentally, before us.  

Blimey

Well, contrary to the snarky impression given by my post below , Sarah Palin has certainly given everyone loads to talk about. Internet rumours that her youngest child is really her daughter's appear to be wide of the mark, but 17-year old Bristol (strange what you call your kids in Alaska - her Downs syndrome son is called Trig) is, it turns out pregnant and - shock horror! - unmarried! Though she is marrying the father. Phew. Can't believe this will damage the McCain campaign at all. If anything, it can only make Palin seem more human. Even weirdie fundies can't be too upset given she is keeping the child and that the father is 'standing by her'.

McCain and torture

Just in case you missed it - Andrew Sullivan made the excellent point a couple of weeks ago that John 'subject-verb-PoW' McCain was not tortured as a PoW according to the bastardised Bush definition of torture. What he went through was just the use of enhanced interrogation techniques, or whatever Orwell-esque phrase is currently in vogue in Bushland. And, to add an extra seasoning of irony, Sullivan claims that in supporting the Military Commissions Act, McCain acquiesced in CIA use of these same techniques against terror suspects. "And so the tortured became the enabler of torture."

Sullivan has been great on the torture point. Putting aside the moral obscenity of it all,  its sanctioning at the top of the administration has been surely one of the most catastrophic global political mistakes of the Bush presidency, up there with Rumsfield and the DoD running roughshod over the careful work of the State Department in relation to war- and post=war planning Iraq.  

The Barracuda and the price of smashing that glass ceiling

Wow, Sarah Palin's a scary creature to liberal European eyes. Evangelical Christian; purist 'pro-life' position (though in favour of the death penalty, natch); in favour of the teaching of creationism in schools; fiercely anti-gun control; anti-stem cell research. Green she isn't = she doesn't believe in man-made global warming, she's in favour of drilling in ANWR, she opposed listing the polar bear as an endangered species, and so, depressingly, on.  

Many of these positions are contrary to McCain's own, of course. But it's also hard to think of a set of values and beliefs which are further from Hillary Clinton's. Yet everyone assumes that a key part of the decision to pick Palin was to sweep up some embittered Clinton loyalists. Is the pull of gender communalism so strong that someone who believes in what Hillary believes in could vote for McCain on the basis that he has Palin on the ticket - just because Palin is a woman? How depressing if so. 

McCain chooses his VP - excitement boils over

Life imitates art - again

Obviously the Obama 'narrative' has striking parallels with that of Matt Santos in the West Wing (though I fear John McCain is a much nastier piece of work than Arnold Vinick - you can't imagine Arnie V calling his wife a c**t). Indeed, the scriptwriters may have based Santos' character on BO (unfortunate initials, no?). And the parallels have now been reinforced by his choosing an older, well-respected, 'safe' running mate (Biden/McGarry). 

It seems to me that it is likely that the fact that choosing Biden would reinforce this West Wing narrative is very likely to have played a (small) part in the decision to select with him. The point must have come up in discussions within the Obama camp, whether seriously or not, after all. Not bad for a telly programme with Rob Lowe in it.

Oh, it's Biden...yawn. Well, yes, but

The accepted view on the blogosphere, exemplified at Kos, seems to be that Obama's choice of Biden as his VP is 'plugging a gap' and not 'reinforcing the message', and so is disappointing because of that. I'm not convinced. I do think Biden is the safe choice, and so to that extent feel let down. But can one really argue that Obama needs his message 'reinforced'? He and the 'change' chorus has saturated the media - seven Time covers in one year! - and the danger he now faces, it seems to me, is cynicism (he's all hot air) and boredom (not him again). In this light, 'reinforcing the message' is precisely what he doesn't need to do. But that doesn't mean that the windbag Biden is unalloyed good news - clearly anyone who has been found to have stolen passages from Neil Kinnock's speeches can't be described as that - nor that there wasn't a real third choice of surprising us, and strengthening an underplayed part of his ticket. Al Gore, anyone?

Obama's weakness, continued

A good summary of the type of points discussed below (in general terms, not focussing on abortion) from the Corner at National Review Online.