The US Election

[Budapest]

Remember, you don't order French fries, you order freedom fries.

[pmartel]

Remember, you don't order French fries, you order freedom fries.

Now if you live in Toronto, you may NOT get gravy with those fries.

Our mayor wants to get rid of the 'Gravy train' so NO GRAVY with the fries, so the fries are FREE from GRAVY.

Sorry, forgive the bad regional humour

[Budapest]

pmartel, we posted at the same time. Your post gave me a good laugh.

Could you apply Je pense donc je suis to any of these candidates?

[pmartel]

I thought you'd like that.

Let's see what I can come up with!!

[marthe]

Oh-oh. I don't know about that. Apparently ... he speaks French.

But, erm, why would anyone think that a bad thing? (Don't bother with the cheese-eating surrender monkeys thing: I mean, why would anyone intelligent think an American speaking French was a bad thing? Are candidates with passports similarly to be distrusted?)

It's not that speaking French is a bad thing, in fact many Americans will have spent a university semester abroad in a French, Spanish, Italian, Greek etc.-speaking country to become fluent in another language. It's the perception of elitism that gets under the skin of middle America. Speaking French (or other foreign language) with any kind of fluency is still deemed un-American, even though affluent parents are shoving their children into after-school Mandarin classes as fast as they possibly can. My European cousins are all, at least, tri-lingual. My Russian sister-in-law is a fluent speaker of Russian, French, English (British and American), German, and Polish. Many Americans don't even speak their own language correctly let alone a second language. The Founding Fathers, especially Thomas Jefferson, all spoke French. Jefferson spent quite a bit of time in Paris after 1783. This has been conveniently forgotten by the Great American Public.

[greenilex]

I fear there are hangovers here from the scrabble for Empire, when English-speaking colonists had a hard job displacing and rooting out every trace of their French-speaking predecessors in the Mid-west and other areas.

[scottycelt]

Oh-oh. I don't know about that. Apparently ... he speaks French.

But, erm, why would anyone think that a bad thing? (Don't bother with the cheese-eating surrender monkeys thing: I mean, why would anyone intelligent think an American speaking French was a bad thing? Are candidates with passports similarly to be distrusted?)

I never imagined my point about some American attitudes towards Europeans, and the French in particular, being vindicated so soon and incontrovertibly ...

Romney himself is fond of saying things largely incomprehensible to European ears ... I mean, what on earth is so desperately despicable about a European-style welfare state?

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/newt-gingrichs-mitt-romney-french-ad-stops-just-short-of-noting-his-purdy-mouth/

[amateur51]

Romney himself is fond of saying things largely incomprehensible to European ears ... I mean, what on earth is so desperately despicable about a European-style welfare state?

Have you seen Michael Moore's film Sicko, scotty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicko

[pmartel]

Thought you might be interested in this;

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1114630--does-mitt-romney-s-long-love-affair-with-canada-still-have-heat?bn=1

[bluestateprommer]

It's interesting that Romney, the most sane of the Republicans, did so well in New Hampshire, the land of the libertarians. This may be early days, but I am predicting an Obama-Romney race in the end.

Actually, the sanest of the Republican POTUS candidates is Jon Huntsman, but he's an awful campaigner and doesn't stand a chance in you-know-where. Plus, Huntsman is tainted by having worked in the Obama administration. Romney will definitely be the Republican nominee, thanks to all the Super-PAC $$ behind him thanks to that awful CItizens United ruling from the Supreme Court (thank you, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, for that horrific decision). Check out this for more details about that:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/31/us/politics/restore-our-future-attack-ads-harm-gingrich-in-iowa.html

Plus, Romney is a complete turncoat for turning his back on his record as MA governor, going so far as to embrace the "personhood" amendment recently pushed in Missisippi (and defeated, thank goodness) that defined conception as the beginning of life. President Obama's health-care plan resembles the Romney plan from the latter's time as Mass. governor, but all of a sudden Romney is disavowing it. Talk about being for something before being against it. However, I have very little faith that the majority of my fellow citizens will wake up in time to see what a corporatist disaster a President Romney would be.

[Lateralthinking1]

"These neocon blues are melting away"........

Five days to go until South Carolina votes. Ron Paul moves up to joint second with Rick Santorum in the opinion polls. Newt, who had been second behind Romney, is now fourth. Perry, as previously predicted here, is proving to be the right wing candidate who will fall. The more moderate Huntsman looks all washed out in what was never going to be a good state for him. Oh, and Romney has apparently increased his lead since Thursday from 2% or 8% - take your pick of the polls - to 21%. What has happened?

Newt's negative campaigning which has gone down like a lead balloon -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynVa26newCI (1m, 39s)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hwh82GtVGh4 (0m, 32s)



Mitt glossing over his Mormon religion -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/10042834

Ron's typically odd and yet rather remarkable campaign -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqCry...feature=relmfu (1m, 32s)

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71464.html

.......Start spreading the news : there's a bit of a late surge for him -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Be19BFWi7E (3m, 26s)

[Lateralthinking1]

.....Developments in the American Election during the past few days arguably make a war with Iran more likely.

When Jon Huntsman pulled out of the race, this wasn't the case. It wasn't that he was opposed to military intervention. It seems that only Ron Paul is so. However, he was widely seen as stable in personality and the candidate closest to the political centre. Even Ron Paul himself had some good words to say for him, describing him as similar politically to Mitt Romney but more honourable.



I was sad to see him go but could understand the strategy. He was barely registering in the opinion polls in South Carolina. It appeared he could not command the support of right wing states. By leaving the race now, what support he did have would transfer over to Romney, delivering an early decisive blow to all the other candidates. Now that strategy looks to have been premature. For a start, it emerges that the Huntsman camp have more doubts about Romney than they admitted. It is shown here in a video that was withheld from the Internet. I think it casts doubt not only on Romney but the gravitas that Huntsman Senior might have brought to the Presidential role. But certainly it is unlikely to paint a rosier picture of Romney for the American public:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/reliable-source/post/jon-huntsmans-daughters-and-the-romney-mocking-video-you-never-saw/2012/01/18/gIQAh72z8P_blog.html

This though is a trifling sideshow in the light of other developments. Romney continues to benefit from the existence of three right wing candidates - Gingrich, Perry and Santorum - whose votes are split. There will not be a President Perry. The question has always been whether the Gingrich campaign can gather momentum despite his very poor record.

While in Congress, he favoured deregulating Wall Street, slashing the minimum wage and cutting food stamps for the poor. He divorced his second wife while she was in the hospital suffering from cancer. He "prosecuted" Clinton for the Lewinsky affair while he was cheating on his wife. He was removed from House leadership by the Republican Party and fined thousands of dollars for his ethical lapses. And he has earned millions as a lobbyist for a firm specializing in funnelling millions to health insurance companies.



Well, it seems that many voters in South Carolina have been able to forgive and forget. Four new opinion polls show the race between Romney and Gingrich tightening with Gingrich even being in the lead in one by three percentage points. It could be then that negative campaigning has a terrible effect for several days and can then lead to a significant surge:

http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2012/01/19/four-polls-show-a-romney-gingrich-barn-burner-in-s-c/

One thing is still certain. While many on the right in South Carolina might be prepared to vote for Gingrich, few will support him with any enthusiasm. There is still the feeling that a good candidate of the right is yet to be found. Furthermore, his very poor showing in New Hampshire might suggest that while Huntsman couldn't carry the right wing states, Gingrich might falter in more liberal territory. Oh, and he has described the Palestinians as an "invented race". War watchers might wish to be wary. Still, it is my belief that he would be reasonably measured in terms of international action. He is thoughtful and considered when it comes to his own interests, if little else, and lacks the fire and brimstone of religious fanaticism, however right wing his views.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16633750

Now though comes the news above that the results in Iowa, which were bad news for Gingrich and stunningly good for Santorum, might have been falsified. On the night Santorum finished just eight votes behind Romney. Today it seems that he might actually have won it. Here you really have to wonder about the American democratic system even further and question which forces might be being applied. No doubt all the focus in the coming days will be on the race in South Carolina between Romney and Gingrich but to dismiss Santorum in the longer term would be ludicrous. Perry will drop out after the primary, Gingrich has all that baggage and there is no hint that Santorum, who many want to see as the real thing, will consider putting a halt to his long-term campaign. The news from Iowa gives him a real boost. He may well gain support by starting to argue that the voting can't be trusted.



In November, Santorum who is arguably a religious fanatic called for a ‘pre-emptive strike’ on Iran. He has also shown with BBC reporters and others that he has what I would argue is an an angry demeanour, an American schoolboy aggression and a very short fuse. He is of course against social security and abortion and gay marriage but it is the combination of international policy and apparent character which disturbs me as a UK citizen. Some have gone as far as to say that they see him as unhinged if not quite in those words. I am not saying whether war with Iran would be right or wrong but there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that Santorum would take us into one willingly. For those against one, he of all the candidates is the one who would naturally be considered dangerous. Personally, I have never seen an American candidate who looks to me more dangerous to world peace.

Pre-emptive strike on Iran - http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...clear-weapons/

Argument with a voter - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s3oV...eature=related

No such thing as global warning - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPhkf...eature=related

[Chris Newman]

It always puzzles me that US elections whether for Congress, Senate, Governor or President, or like these which are really internal party elections often end up with mere handfuls of votes deciding who wins when there are huge numbers of electors voting. Look at the five or so voters for George W Bush's brother in Florida that got him to the White House. You could not make it up in North Korea (or Moscow)

[Anna]

It seems that Rick Perry is going to pull out and endorse Newt Gingrich:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world/

[Lateralthinking1]

Thanks Chris. I think what you say is thought provoking. What fascinates me about the American system is how it interprets democracy both in policy and elections. Ours isn't at all good but it makes for interesting contrasts. As you say, the sheer numbers of voters, even in primaries, and the fact that the differences in votes between candidates can be so narrow.

Also, as I understand it, not all state delegates allocated to the convention on the basis of the number of votes received in primaries need to cast their votes at the convention for the relevant candidate although in practice they generally do so.

The wealth someone needs to be elected. It means that the vast majority of people could never stand.

And particularly the one year circus before someone is chosen to stand against the President. It requires a special commitment on the part of voters to turn out several times. As for the candidates, you would think that they would be exhausted before ever running the country. Much as I find his policies bizarre, I do have a certain respect for Ron Paul who is doing all this for a second time in his seventies. I wouldn't have the energy to do a tenth of it now!

....oh and thanks Anna. I hadn't realised that it was imminent. Perry is/was the second worst candidate in my view.

Rick Perry's leaving speech - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16635833

And at his worst - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uvmKnFY4uk and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pyi3VOetFDg