The US Election

[Serial_Apologist]

Oh lordy no, S_A - could you offer up a link so that I may bask in my own stupidity, svp?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g6PpIW3hPg

[Lateralthinking1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g6PpIW3hPg

It is always worthwhile finding something positive in the opposition. If nothing else, it makes basic living more bearable. I agree with little that Condoleeza Rice says. Any impacts of her political outlook would be indistinguishable from those of Romney other than arguably being more devastating. However, she has extraordinary ability. Furthermore, her motivation always comes across as straightforward. She appears to lack the conniving and even sinister traits of many of her colleagues. I find her impressive.

There was a heavy hint of a return to the "War on Terror" in her speech. That is not likely to be welcomed by the Tea Party. I also note that while the camera was placed frequently towards black women in the audience, there were many middle aged white guys grimacing while applauding. The message was right for them. The person speaking was altogether less acceptable. It is fascinating to see how prejudice is handed down from generation to generation. When younger, I believed naively that we were all developing.

But this Republican convention represents a slight sea change. It wasn't battered, as expected, by the climate. Clint Eastwood, who I have never liked, did what was required of him. And Paul Ryan is clearly an inspired choice of V-P candidate who is managing to bring the different forces together. You very rarely hear Romney's name mentioned alone now. That's no coincidence.

Two past elections particularly spring to mind. The election of 1980 saw Jimmy Carter going after just one term. Carter did not even have the electoral disadvantage of being black but, on the plus side for Obama, Romney is no Reagan. The other is the 1960 election. JFK only just won at a time when many thought a Catholic could never be elected. It is quite possible that Romney could be the Mormon equivalent to Kennedy. Plus no one has been re-elected with the perceived poor economic record of Obama.

On balance, I would probably say that Obama's days are numbered. He wasn't responsible for the economic mess but many Americans have persuaded themselves that it is his fault. Having said as much, there is still only a percentage point between the candidates and Obama is for now in the lead. Even if I had it, I wouldn't put much money on the outcome at this stage.

[Serial_Apologist]

It is always worthwhile finding something positive in the opposition. If nothing else, it makes basic living more bearable. I agree with little that Condoleeza Rice says. Any impacts of her political outlook would be indistinguishable from those of Romney other than arguably being more devastating. However, she has extraordinary ability. Furthermore, her motivation always comes across as straightforward. She appears to lack the conniving and even sinister traits of many of her colleagues. I find her impressive.

There was a heavy hint of a return to the "War on Terror" in her speech. That is not likely to be welcomed by the Tea Party. I also note that while the camera was placed frequently towards black women in the audience, there were many middle aged white guys grimacing while applauding. The message was right for them. The person speaking was altogether less acceptable. It is fascinating to see how prejudice is handed down from generation to generation. When younger, I believed naively that we were all developing.

I agree that Condolezza was impressive. Actually I think the American Right is still very divided over "adventures abroad". Part of it wants retrenchment - our boys are needed here to rebuild the country, too many of our lives have been fruitlessly sacrificed - the other half, the half that would rather murder its own grandmother than utter a word of criticism of Israel, can hardly wait to go in and bomb Iran, North Korea, you name it, we'll find it on an atlas if you give us time.

Three brief observations.

Firstly, her rhetoric amounted to a justification for the Bush presidency, as you rightly imply, with no apologies for the Iraq invasion forthcoming.

Secondly, no apologies offered for the effective setting-up of Obama as blameworthy for the banking crisis, albeit that she carefully avoided mentioning his name and, for that matter, personalisations of any kind.

Thrdly, in the teeth of all evidence to the contrary - going back decades in the case of minorities, if you will - Condi sticks to the fond 19th century white-born(e) illusion of America as the land of opportunity for all.

There's acres more to be unpicked in that speech: the American Dream not being about religion or race, anyone??? The bigoted Right may not have yet come around to an erstwhile working class black woman holding the ideological lynchpin up for the future of American free enterprise libertarianism, but the Blairs, Camerons, Merkels and so on are waiting in the wings to sing her praises back at them.

But this Republican convention represents a slight sea change. It wasn't battered, as expected, by the climate. Clint Eastwood, who I have never liked, did what was required of him. And Paul Ryan is clearly an inspired choice of V-P candidate who is managing to bring the different forces together. You very rarely hear Romney's name mentioned alone now. That's no coincidence.

Two past elections particularly spring to mind. The election of 1980 saw Jimmy Carter going after just one term. Carter did not even have the electoral disadvantage of being black but, on the plus side for Obama, Romney is no Reagan. The other is the 1960 election. JFK only just won at a time when many thought a Catholic could never be elected. It is quite possible that Romney could be the Mormon equivalent to Kennedy. Plus no one has been re-elected with the perceived poor economic record of Obama.

On balance, I would probably say that Obama's days are numbered. He wasn't responsible for the economic mess but many Americans have persuaded themselves that it is his fault. Having said as much, there is still only a percentage point between the candidates and Obama is for now in the lead. Even if I had it, I wouldn't put much money on the outcome at this stage.

I'm probably overestimating the American Right's intelligence, but taking account of the floating voter demographic and likelhood of a much smaller turnout for the Presidential election this time around, Condolezza's speech could well have tipped it Romney's way.

[Richard Tarleton]

One can only listen open-mouthed to CR's rhetoric, and the utter lack of self-knowledge or history it betrays.

Since WorldWar 2 the United States has had an answer to that question - free peoples and free markets. We will defend and support them.

Since World War 2, the US (and more particularly the CIA) has had a distinguished track record of supporting unsavoury dictators in all parts of the world, and overturning democratically elected governments. For balance, a brief check-list, courtesy of Tariq Ali:
1953, Iran - removal of Mossadegh, return of the Shah
1958 CIA authorises military coup in Pakistan
1964 Brazil, US Ambassador masterminds military takeover
1973 US authorises Gerneral Pinochet's coup in Chile
1975 US authorises Indinesian takeover of East Timor
1975 US supports military coup in Argentina
1977 US approves new coup in Pakistan
1979 Saddam is armed and supported in war against Iran
1982 US invades Grenada. George Schultz: "At first sight I realised that this island could be a splendid real estate project".
1984 US arms Contras in Nicaragua to overthrow democratically elected (OK not perfect) Sandinista regime

Some of Ali's judgements may be arguable, - but supporting free peoples? Condi completely reinvents US foreign policy.

[amateur51]

Thanks for the Condoleeza Rice convention speech link, S_A

I agree with S_A and Lats that Condy's speech was a triumph for what was not said as much for what she did say. She is up to her hips in Bush's Iraq disaster (did you hear the news this morning?) but that doesn't get mentioned, as you say.

She may well turn out to be a potent Obama-charm antidote. i think her speech will need a response from Obama along the lines that you have suggested - he must identify Romney with the greed that caused the sub-prime collapse; and I think he needs to gamble on Rice's popularity by nailing her as a key player in that disaster, and reminding people of the illegality of Bush's first election.

Her point about America's not leading meaning chaos is well made but ignores the fact that Russia & China are not leading either for much the same reasons. Superpowers like to back a winner and no-one can tell who the winners will be, because of inter-Muslim warfare and attacks on Christians. Equally NATO is not going to lead because the Europeans have no money and even less will to spill European blood.The emergence of food and water as key determinants in the mix just as Africa appears to be making some progress economically and on governance muddies the water even further.

By sticking her head above the sidewalk like this, Rice has put herself in the firing line and either Obama or Clinton has to go for her. I thought Rice was too clever to do this but I was wrong, clearly. Maybe her speech will ensure that Obama can mobilise all his supporters. Where's Colin Powell when you need him?

[Serial_Apologist]

Thanks for the Condoleeza Rice convention speech link, S_A

I agree with S_A and Lats that Condy's speech was a triumph for what was not said as much for what she did say. She is up to her hips in Bush's Iraq disaster (did you hear the news this morning?) but that doesn't get mentioned, as you say.

She may well turn out to be a potent Obama-charm antidote. i think her speech will need a response from Obama along the lines that you have suggested - he must identify Romney with the greed that caused the sub-prime collapse; and I think he needs to gamble on Rice's popularity by nailing her as a key player in that disaster, and reminding people of the illegality of Bush's first election.

Her point about America's not leading meaning chaos is well made but ignores the fact that Russia & China are not leading either for much the same reasons. Superpowers like to back a winner and no-one can tell who the winners will be, because of inter-Muslim warfare and attacks on Christians. Equally NATO is not going to lead because the Europeans have no money and even less will to spill European blood.The emergence of food and water as key determinants in the mix just as Africa appears to be making some progress economically and on governance muddies the water even further.

By sticking her head above the sidewalk like this, Rice has put herself in the firing line and either Obama or Clinton has to go for her. I thought Rice was too clever to do this but I was wrong, clearly. Maybe her speech will ensure that Obama can mobilise all his supporters. Where's Colin Powell when you need him?

Colin Powell will remain in the shadows, I predict.

Excellent summation, Ams - especially regarding the campaign imperatives facing Obama in the forthcomings.

[Tony Halstead]

Thanks for the Condoleeza Rice convention speech link, S_A

I agree with S_A and Lats that Condy's speech was a triumph for what was not said as much for what she did say. She is up to her hips in Bush's Iraq disaster (did you hear the news this morning?) but that doesn't get mentioned, as you say.

She may well turn out to be a potent Obama-charm antidote. i think her speech will need a response from Obama along the lines that you have suggested - he must identify Romney with the greed that caused the sub-prime collapse; and I think he needs to gamble on Rice's popularity by nailing her as a key player in that disaster, and reminding people of the illegality of Bush's first election.

Her point about America's not leading meaning chaos is well made but ignores the fact that Russia & China are not leading either for much the same reasons. Superpowers like to back a winner and no-one can tell who the winners will be, because of inter-Muslim warfare and attacks on Christians. Equally NATO is not going to lead because the Europeans have no money and even less will to spill European blood.The emergence of food and water as key determinants in the mix just as Africa appears to be making some progress economically and on governance muddies the water even further.

By sticking her head above the sidewalk like this, Rice has put herself in the firing line and either Obama or Clinton has to go for her. I thought Rice was too clever to do this but I was wrong, clearly. Maybe her speech will ensure that Obama can mobilise all his supporters. Where's Colin Powell when you need him?

What news this morning?

[amateur51]

What news this morning?

Sorry waldhorn, two aspects of US/NATO Bush-initiated involvement in places where they shouldn't be involved ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19447611

plus this

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/hardtalk/9747367.stm

[Pabmusic]

Here's a summary of US military and CIA involvement in other countries since WW2: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/...yed-we-forgot/

[amateur51]

Here's a summary of US military and CIA involvement in other countries since WW2: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/...yed-we-forgot/

Both astonishing and depressing, Pabs.

I liked the caption underneath...

"We Came, We Saw, We Destroyed, We Forgot - Brief US History On War - AND IRAN IS A THREAT TO US???????????????" - too true sadly

[Richard Tarleton]

Here's a summary of US military and CIA involvement in other countries since WW2: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/...yed-we-forgot/

A rather fuller list than my #109, thanks Pabs - I'll bookmark this one.

[Pabmusic]

A rather fuller list than my #109, thanks Pabs - I'll bookmark this one.

This book: http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_...+regan&x=0&y=0 is primarily about the Iraq War, but contains a lot about the USA's aggressive foreign policy in the 19th and 20th Century. Highly recommended.

[Lateralthinking1]

On the American Dream, if you want to be a successful black person in US politics, you have to be Condoleeza Rice or Barack Obama, ie write books, play piano concertos, be athletic and flip burgers as well as running the country. I can't imagine that a black Mitt Romney would stand a chance.

The authorities used to place a helicopter on the White House lawn when Ronnie Reagan was speaking so that any errors would be lost in the sound of the rotor blades. He was never a fool and in later days he was less than well but it does show how much emphasis is placed on the presentation.

I was surprised - and a little shocked - that Condi in her speech appeared to turn China into a demon. Not the best way forward on balance. That she was very closely involved with the Bush wars is without question but somehow it feels better coming from her than a Rumsfeld. That is not a good thing.

On Am's point that Obama "must identify Romney with the greed that caused the sub-prime collapse", I would like to think that this was true and still hope. However, when it comes to money making, I feel increasingly that many Americans have few scruples.

[greenilex]

It is not easy to recognise oneself as "greedy". Many people would say that they are simply making the best possible provision for their families.

The idea of the poor scholar has much to recommend it, but they are not allowed to have children to bring up, are they?

[scottycelt]

Here's a summary of US military and CIA involvement in other countries since WW2: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/...yed-we-forgot/

Here's a truly priceless gem from the same mouthpiece ...

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/08/17/ecuador-president-rafael-we-are-not-a-colony-correa-stands-up-to-the-jackbooted-british-gestapo/