Posts
Republican Ticket: The Objectively Weakest in History?
Post coming soon on Sarah Palin, and where the mistakes, misogyny and responsibility for the pretty pass at which we find ourselves really lie. Clearly the folks where this e-card came from either don't know that in Alaska as in UK Bristol Palin is not underage. Or they've bought into that old wives tale about her being Trig's real mom ...
Is we're serious for a moment ... is this the objectively weakest ticket for the Presidential elections ever assembled?
And if we were compiling an equivalent ticket on behalf of the Conservatives who would be on it?
14 comments:
The Labour equivalent would be something like Brown/Harman. Imagine that, if you can.
Could I offer a note of solidarity, although actually by totally disagreeing with you.
I don't think it is the weakest ever ticket - not even for the Republicans.
Strategically and geopolitically, Bush Snr/Quayle was proably wekaer and Bush Jnr/Cheney certainly was. I know the latter never really won an election, but I find that little consolation as things turned out.
On a note of disunity, I don't think Gore or Kerry would have led Britain into an illegal war. Although Blair and Brown were so 'up for it' that maybe we would have taken the US in instead.
David Davis and... um.
Dunno. Our Nadine?
Nicholas Winteron and Ann Widdecombe?
Nadine say five years or so ago would be the obvious one Tom. Don't think David Davis has the back story or the great age to match McCain.
How about Cecil Parkinson? Again five years or so ago.
Winterton and Widdecombe?? Can't see any parallels there at all. Apart from the anti-choice thing. But it would certainly need to be Widdecombe for Pres as Winterton is the clueless one on that ticket.
Anon 22:40: you make some good points. My point is rhetorical, a question for debate rather than my answer.
I'm not sure that your Bush tickets really can beat any ticket with Palin on ... but it's moot.
We'll never know about Gore or Kerry had they actually been in the hotseat. But you may well be right. McCain/Palin certainly wouldn't hesitate to splatter Iran if they felt they could get away with it and had something to hang it on.
I'm not convinced Brown was gung ho for the war. He went with it, but in a very quiet possibly reluctant way.
Wars are very expensive, and at very least he would have taken more time and used more honest means to get there than our friend Blair.
Winteton - ageing maverick
Widdecombe - conference darling, creationist (?) (and moose hunter)
Don't think Widdy is a creationist. And although Winterton invites fantasies of cruel VC torture chambers he just doesn't match up.
"And although Winterton invites fantasies of cruel VC torture chambers"
He is married to Ann Winterton. I think McCain got off lightly in comparison.
Have you read any reviews of the new Paul Auster novel. Part of it revolves around the 2nd term of President which would be just about coming to an end now. It says very interesting things about the Iraq adventure.
On your point about Palin. Well, apparently 165 million Americans believe that the world was created in 7 days - and yet they are allowed to vote, and they do so in great numbers if they have one of their own kind to vote for. The fact that McCain is 73 and has been ill could even galvanise them into thinking that she could become President very, very soon.
I heard a really depressing example recently of just how right wing American politics has bcome.
One of the candidates for the Democrat nomination was Dennis Kunick. He is seen over there as so much on the radical left that he is almost off the scale. He does have some support both within and outside the Democrats, but it is minimal.
His wife is British and, as such, was being interviewed on the BBC. She was asked to place him in terms of British politics to which she replied that he would probably be on the liberal wing of the Conservative Party - a sort of Kenneth Clarke figure. Or, to put it another way, Ken Clarke in the USA would be on the far left of the Democrats with everybody else to the right of him.
On further reflection, he is to the left of New Labour - but who isn't?
Ken Clarke is not to the left of New Labour - whatever that is.
I'm even more sceptical about this 165 million figure than I am about creationism. Where does it come from.
The 165 million figure comes from the BBC - a programme they did in the last couple of years ago on this phenomenon, both in the UK and the USA. It was quoted again on Radio 4 this morning - admittedly by a Palin supporter. It has also been backed up by surveys carried out by reputable pollsters in the US - although I can't remember which ones . I think MORI may have been one.
There were one or two examples of a church not having an official belief in creationism but a significant proportion of its members doing so. In one case, the number approached 60%.
One of the polls was somewhat undermined by the fact that about 20% of self-defiend agnostics believed that the world was created in 7 days - and even these idiots get the vote!
In some ways I don't really care. What does it matter politically what somebody thinks were the origins of the universe? But, unfortunately, these beliefs more often than not go hand in hand with a whole other set of medieval views - on Roe v Wade, same-sex marriage, contraception, wars against unbelievers etc.
Yes indeed to all that. The Creationism indicates idiocy. But it not by any means the worst idiocy in this basket of baskets.
I'm going to have a root around for evidence or otherwise of this figure. If it were adults it would be most of them in the USA after all. If it's true they should be immediately removed from their role as "leader of the free world", their military should be disbanded, and their exports boycotted.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml
http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-06-07-evolution-poll-results_n.htm
The figures seem to be fairly standard whether reported by those supporting or opposing creationism. i think that's a fairly good indication that the stats are correct - the conclusion may differ but the figures are basically right.
Bristol was 16 when she started polishing Sonny-Jim's knob, so she wasn't under-age in Alaska.
I reckon that is is actually a good ticket since McCain couldn't break through to the religious vote in the heartland. Now he can.
Post a Comment