"She knows who brung her to this dance," they say in Texas. Payment of the customary kind is expected.
President McCain would know that it was the disgruntled Clinton-supporting white feminists, militantly non-English-speaking and pro-amnesty Hispanics, and socially ultraliberal, hawkish, more-or-less secular Jews who had brung him to the White House, by switching, even if only this once, from the Democrats. He would put out for them accordingly. Why, he might even have had Joe Lieberman as his running mate.
Well, two can play that game.
It is perfectly possible that Obama could just scrape in on the votes of those whites in South Carolina, where he will of course clean up among the large number of black voters, who vote the ticket that has on it Bob Conley, traditional Catholic (with all that that entails on life and family issues), Ron Paul activist (with all that that entails on trade, immigration and foreign policy), and Democratic candidate for United States Senator. For that matter, the black votes for that same ticket, because it has Obama on it, also make it Conley's ticket to Capitol Hill.
The black churches are key to getting out Obama's vote. Are Baptists and Pentecostals characteristically anti-life or anti-family? And the more organised lobby on these matters, of (often blue-collar, naturally and historically Democratic) Catholics and (mostly blue-collar, naturally and historically Democratic) white Evangelicals, needs to learn the lesson: the anti-life and anti-family forces are preparing to switch sides in order to indebt President McCain to them. You need to be preparing to switch sides (and thus, unlike them, to go home) in order to indebt President Obama to you.
This time next year, whoever is hosting any ball or reception at the White House, he must, and he will, know who brung him to that dance.
Friday, 22 August 2008
McCain: An American Thatcher
Married money and never looked back politically, because never had to work again.
Just A Second
Following yesterday's links to Guardian articles both by my friend Phillip Blond and by A C Grayling (with whom I suspect that I'd get on if I ever met him, unlike, say, Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens), the reason why, pace Grayling, we still need both religious and specifically Christian representatives in our reformed legislature is precisely to give voice to traditions such as those articulated by Blond:
"elements from the radical conservative past - where figures such as William Cobbett, Thomas Carlyle and John Ruskin argued for a working class self-sufficiency, or English Catholic writers such as GK Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc argued that only widely distributed ownership could resist the dispossession and destruction of rabid capitalism."
How might this be gone about? In place of 26 bishops, how about 26 representatives (all politically independent, of course), 13 specifically of the United Kingdom's Christian heritage, and 13 of moral and spiritual values generally? This would be far more than fair: if the aim were simply to reflect the population at large, then seventy-two per cent of such seats would be reserved for Christians.
Elections would be on a national basis. From each list of candidates, each of us would be able to vote for one candidate, and the highest-scoring 13 would be declared elected at the end. Vacancies in the course of a Parliament would be filled by simply bringing in number 14.
This should be done within a wider restoration of the original purpose of the second chamber, to provide representation territorially (i.e., in county terms, the origin of hereditary peers), to furnish parliamentarians who were responsible to and for the country as a whole rather than any locality (life peers), and to give voice to the nation's Christian heritage and moral and spiritual values (historically, of course, the same thing, even if never since the Reformation contained in any one ecclesial body alone).
If there had only ever been one hereditary peer per county, he had lived there when not at Westminster, its name had been his title, and he had been strictly independent of party, then there would never have been a problem.
"elements from the radical conservative past - where figures such as William Cobbett, Thomas Carlyle and John Ruskin argued for a working class self-sufficiency, or English Catholic writers such as GK Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc argued that only widely distributed ownership could resist the dispossession and destruction of rabid capitalism."
How might this be gone about? In place of 26 bishops, how about 26 representatives (all politically independent, of course), 13 specifically of the United Kingdom's Christian heritage, and 13 of moral and spiritual values generally? This would be far more than fair: if the aim were simply to reflect the population at large, then seventy-two per cent of such seats would be reserved for Christians.
Elections would be on a national basis. From each list of candidates, each of us would be able to vote for one candidate, and the highest-scoring 13 would be declared elected at the end. Vacancies in the course of a Parliament would be filled by simply bringing in number 14.
This should be done within a wider restoration of the original purpose of the second chamber, to provide representation territorially (i.e., in county terms, the origin of hereditary peers), to furnish parliamentarians who were responsible to and for the country as a whole rather than any locality (life peers), and to give voice to the nation's Christian heritage and moral and spiritual values (historically, of course, the same thing, even if never since the Reformation contained in any one ecclesial body alone).
If there had only ever been one hereditary peer per county, he had lived there when not at Westminster, its name had been his title, and he had been strictly independent of party, then there would never have been a problem.
Age Shall Not Weary Them
Last night's Channel Four News featured the splendid Mrs Wu and Mrs Wang, neighbours aged 77 and 79 respectively, who have been sentenced to one year's "re-education through labour" (though told that they may serve it at home, however one does that) after they went along to one of the protest parks set up to coincide with the Olympics, in order to demonstrate against the demolition of their former homes and their re-housing in ramshackle shacks. The Police even had to confiscate their "criminal equipment", namely the fireworks that they had intended to let off in protest.
While under arrest, they managed to lodge a complaint about the food provided, which Mrs Wang could not eat, because she has no teeth. She is also almost blind.
And Mrs Wu was shown as adept at driving away spies from her doorway, fearlessly shouting them down while waving her walking stick.
There are many Mrs Wus and Mrs Wangs in this world. But still nowhere near enough.
While under arrest, they managed to lodge a complaint about the food provided, which Mrs Wang could not eat, because she has no teeth. She is also almost blind.
And Mrs Wu was shown as adept at driving away spies from her doorway, fearlessly shouting them down while waving her walking stick.
There are many Mrs Wus and Mrs Wangs in this world. But still nowhere near enough.
Buried Book
I have been sent the following:
In a new book, American journalist Ron Suskind has demolished any remaining shred of credibility for the attack on Iraq in 2003. His book proves that both M16 and the CIA knew there were no weapons of mass destruction before the invasion and that both agencies made this clear to the Bush administration. The media in Britain has largely ignored the story, but you can see Suskind discussing his book on the US
Daily Show, available online here.
In a new book, American journalist Ron Suskind has demolished any remaining shred of credibility for the attack on Iraq in 2003. His book proves that both M16 and the CIA knew there were no weapons of mass destruction before the invasion and that both agencies made this clear to the Bush administration. The media in Britain has largely ignored the story, but you can see Suskind discussing his book on the US
Daily Show, available online here.
Thursday, 21 August 2008
The Oliver Kamm Challenge Becomes The David Miliband Challenge
Once again, I challenge Oliver Kamm, if he has such an aversion to "Biblical creationism" within his understanding of the term, to explain why he has been such a devoted supporter of the "Biblical creationist" George Bush, and why he remains a positively fanatical supporter of the "Biblical creationist" Tony Blair.
I further challenge David Miliband, extolled by A C Grayling as the great secularist Prime Minister in waiting. Why did you advocate and support the handing over of large numbers of state school pupils (though nowhere near as many as was hoped and intended) to the Emmanuel Schools Foundation? Why does Grayling hold out such high hopes for such a person?
And for that matter, why did Grayling's other atheist hero in the Cabinet, Alan Johnson (another Blairite ultra such as would be and is favoured by Kamm), launch a ferocious assault on Catholic schools while he was Education Secretary, even if he was successfully seen off? Why are Catholic state schools at public expense bad, but creationist private schools at public expense good, or at least acceptable? Why does Grayling support such people? Why does Miliband? Why does Kamm?
I further challenge David Miliband, extolled by A C Grayling as the great secularist Prime Minister in waiting. Why did you advocate and support the handing over of large numbers of state school pupils (though nowhere near as many as was hoped and intended) to the Emmanuel Schools Foundation? Why does Grayling hold out such high hopes for such a person?
And for that matter, why did Grayling's other atheist hero in the Cabinet, Alan Johnson (another Blairite ultra such as would be and is favoured by Kamm), launch a ferocious assault on Catholic schools while he was Education Secretary, even if he was successfully seen off? Why are Catholic state schools at public expense bad, but creationist private schools at public expense good, or at least acceptable? Why does Grayling support such people? Why does Miliband? Why does Kamm?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
