hehehehehehe. Just click the damn link, I am laughing too hard to write anymore.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Blair for President!July 22nd, 2003 |
 39 comments to Blair for President! |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
… I could definitely support him for UN Secretary General.
It might allow him to use his strengths, without giving him a forum or basis for very much of his socialist agenda.
It does make you think, when he basically was invited to Congress last week to articulate things about the war on terror that President Bush is simply incapable of articulating. He came here to bail the administration out.
Does anyone else have a very slight cringe when President Bush starts talking, especially when it’s “off the cuff?” I never have a worry when Prime Minister Blair is speaking, because every single word appears well-considered and well-enunciated.
People do love Blair over here. It’s easy as an American to be selfish and ignore his “socialist agenda”, when he’s been such an incredible stalwart where it matters for most Americans.
Speaking in my capacity as professional American, I find Tony Blair’s manner that of a prissy little creep. And that’s just his style. I used to love to watch William Hague clean his clock in the Commons (which, by common consent, Hague regularly used to do).
In general, British politicians are much more articulate and think better on their feet than their American counterparts. It’s just that Blair isn’t an outstanding example of that.
It’s awkward, being forced to feel real gratitude to Blair. But he took an enormous (possibly fatal) political risk, and I do feel beholden.
He’s gotten better lately, though, don’t you think? Perhaps riding a wave of public hostility suits him.
All academic really because Blair cannot and will not be President of the USA. However, should such an astonishing eventuality come about, then, among other things, you can kiss your 2nd Amendment rights goodbye.
Weasel, I think British politicians are better behind the microphone by necessity. Tony’s better than most, but the climate is very different in the UK. I wish our medol was a bit more like theirs.
Convention in the US dictates that the press allows our politicians to dodge questions and give obvious non-answers to very simply inquries. It’s considered bad form to do otherwise. The British press is rabid by comparison in their questioning. A PM must also deal with the Questions session regularly, something George Bush could never, ever handle in a million years. In short, public discourse in the UK weeds out a lot of politicians who could survive here on a strict regimen of prepared speeches.
That said, Blair is by any measure a magnificent speaker. I prefer to look at Blair, the godfather of the lie that is “Third Way” socialism, as something of a spider in the basement. You don’t want to get too close, and it is never really going to be your friend, but it sure will keeps some of the other bugs in check for you. It’s a mutually beneficial relationship–just don’t fool yourself into thinking it really loves you.
I have always thought that Blair and Stalin have many similarities, not least of which is “Big Brother” capturing the popular imagination during their lifetimes.
Should America at large wish him for their president (preferably two terms) then please feel free to grant him citizenship and access to your tax dollars. There’s many people in Blighty who feel he has been a touch too free with their tax pounds and would be happy to see him go.
To quote another great American, Mr. H. Simpson, “That’s un-possible!” Even if he were granted citizenship, there’s the matter of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution:
Hello? It is a joke guys. Duh.
We know, orcbreath. Would I quote Homer Simpson in a serious post?
Yes.
Bush may not speak real good — but he has good instinctions and he surrounds himself with capable people. In the post-War era, the US hasn’t had much luck with clever or “intellectual” presidents (think Nixon, Carter, Clinton).
Some weeks ago, a writer in the Spectator predicted that Blair and Labour would have a falling out, and Blair would end up standing as a Tory. Hmm…
Of course Blair is someone the Left can get behind. He’s a Socialist. (The Labour party – look it up.)
What too many folks don’t realize about W is that he has learned to cultivate the image of an inarticulate bumpkin and use it to his benefit. I say this with great confidence because, as a fellow Texan, I can testify that this is practically the national sport in Texas. Many a Yankee has had their pockets picked and their clocks cleaned in the Republic of Texas because they made the mistake of believing that somebody who doesn’t talk like them must, perforce, be stupid.
That said, even when Bush isn’t playing the yokel, he still isn’t anywhere near the speaker that Blair is. Still, his instinctions and strategery tend to be pretty sound on foreign affairs, so we’ll keep him, thanks.
The weird thing is, Sen. Orrin Hatch is sponsoring a Amendment that would allow citizens not born in the US to be elected to office. He was on “Fox & Friends” this morning talking about it. (Ironically, he said the initial reason for the Amendment was “to keep the British from coming in & running the country!”) Speculation is that he’s sponsoring it to pave the way for Arnold, but who knows what else might happen! (Besides, I think Tony could make way more money becoming a public speaker & addressing various groups of us adoring Yanks.)
That’s interesting, Maureen. Found a blurb on it here for anyone interested.
“Paving the way” for Arnold, huh? We’ll see. For 2008, perhaps? What I know about Arnold’s politics right now could fit in this text box.
Oh pleeeeeease – please please PLEASE please please- TAKE HIM America… oh go on – go on – och ye know ye want to – oh go on, go on, go onnnnnn… och ye will ye will… Take wee Tony.
Make him President…. of something! ANYTHING!!!!
Just as long as its not us 🙂
I second T. Hartin’s comments about George W. Shortly after he was elected President, a friend who was also an acquaintance and sometime admirer of the ex-Texas governor complained to me about the corn-pone-aw-shucks demeanor. He said that he knew that wasn’t Bush’s only mode of expression. I answered that election winning majorities of Americans like that salt of the earth sort of thing.
I know that Bush did well in Texas because the man in the street identified with him and I think the man in the Chicago or Seattle street does also. That was one of Reagan’s strengths and unfortunately one of Clinton’s strengths too.
Bush and Reagan were regarded as dolts by the media for ideological reasons. Clinton was not- also for ideological reasons. The truth was different. Blair, like Clinton, may be an intelligent man, but unlike Bush and Reagan, Clinton and Blair are also in thrall to their own appetites.
I know it’s a joke, but given our sorry bunch of Democrat hopefuls, I imagine our lefties really wish Blair could run here. They haven’t really appealed to or understood the common American since the 1930’s so they probably don’t see why Blair would need to either. (And aside from gratitude, he wouldn’t have much appeal)
I’ll have to disagree with Doug on one point: The media may have considered Bush and Reagan “dolts” for ideological reasons, but Clinton didn’t get a media pass for the same reason. Clinton was (and is) extraordinarily smart in a conventional sense, ideology aside. He is also “Exhibit A” for the proposition that there’s far more to political leadership than “smarts.”
Kevin White: Arnold S. is that most worthless of all things, a statist paternalist Republican. Piss on him and his steroids from a great height…. Consider that a divorce.
Speaking conspiratorially…
You see, the thing about Blair is that he wants to be President of the World, or at least something very big. That is why he has been so keen to involve Britain in the Euro-project.
Now, should the prospect of becoming US President be dangled in front of him he would be likely to make a rapid about turn. Let’s face it – it would be easier: he’s popular, he speaks the language. So, it would be goodbye Euroland, hello Freedom.
Remember: constitutions are there to be amended.
Don’t forget the PBS factor. BBC shows turning up only on the ‘educational’ channel here (during our childhoods, at least) makes us equate that accent with smarts (that, and “I only watch PBS” is a way for some to try to rise above us cattle who are watching South Park).
If we outright annex the UK, would the constitutional issues disappear?
The best solution for Blair, and Brittain, would be the UN secretary genaral job: he can do there what he does best – speak – and has no power of taxation or any executive duties. So, I vote for making him the President of the World. No constitutional hurdles either, just the problem of convincing Jaques.
Come on now, folks — a ton of it is the accent. Sure, Blair’s got a slightly better speechwriter, but if Bush spoke with the accent that makes most American women think of Hugh Grant and go weak at the knees and makes most American men think denotes intelligence…
George,
Clinton always reminded me of the old saying about being too smart by half. Gore, too, without the political instincts of Clinton.
Blair for President, running with Hillary as VP.
What about that?
The dream ticket!
😉
Oh, thanks, HC. Now I’ll be stuck with the nightmares for months…
This widespread adoration of Mr. Blair makes me embarassed to be an American. Oh well. At least you Brits will will toss him out. Please?
Embarrassed, I mean! I’m going to quit while I still can.
Bush and Reagan were regarded as dolts by the media for ideological reasons.
And Eisenhower as contrasted to the ostensibly erudite Stevenson. They knew otherwise.
even though blair would not get my vote, he would elevate the level of the u.s. prez debate from the stupid level. the pm question time really does give him an opportunity to show his stuff.
on the citizenship thing, if england signed up as a state (or a few of them) then he would be as qualified as the citizens of any new state. with the way blair has been messing about with the constitution who knows what he’ll do next, or why.
Some columnist once suggested that we let foreign-born citizens run for Prez so that such people as Henry “Surrender our allies to the Commies” Kissinger and Madeline “start NATO wars against countries that haven’t attacked NATO” Albright coud run. Yuck.
Can foreign-born citizens run for Prime Minister of Britain?
To be eligible to stand for an election to the Commons, you have to be a British, Commonwealth or Irish Republic citizen.
(Two of the groups of people disbarred from standing are “idiots” and “lunatics”, making me think the original act of parliament responsible must be very old. 😉
Does Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution apply to the office of Vice President?
If not, it would then be legal to have a Hillary and Tony ticket.
The problem would be what to do if Hillary became incapacitated – I suppose whoever follows VP in the foodchain would get the job.
Well, I’ve looked at Amendment XII and it says at the end:
“But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”
I don’t see it being overridden by anything in Amendment XX or Amendment XXV.
So no “Hillary and Tony ticket”.
Adrianne said that Blair’s accent “makes most American men think denotes intelligence… ”
I disagree. Not because I consider my sample of one to be statistically significant, but because most American men still have an atavistic distrust of English accents that may somehow be a genetic memory from 1776 and 1812.
(I want to qualify this by saying ‘upperclass’ English accent as opposed to, say, Cockney but I am not much of a linguist. I am thinking of the precise, clipped manner of speaking that Blair has. I have heard the term ‘upperclass twit’ associated with a sort of nasal, blurred speech and I am not sure which is which. The sort of English accent I am talking about is Blair’s sort.)
For evidence consider: James Stewart was typecast as a villain, particularly a Nazi villain in American movies for years. To Americans, his accent was a symbol for evil. As I recall, the leader of the terrorists in the first Die Hard movie had the same accent. If I start obsessing over this I will probably think of a dozen more examples. Even Sir Laurence Olivier ended up playing bad guys (Marathon Man). When you want a really evil teutonic bad guy – you give him a Tony Blair accent. In fact, the one actor with a real (heavy) Austrian, not just German, accent is always seen in the US as a good guy – even when he is playing an evil automaton.
Now I realize these examples are by no means “chick flicks” so perhaps you are right about the women, but among American male voters, Blair is so much dead meat. Dead meat to which we are grateful, but dead meat nonetheless.
Now the post preceding mine is just ludicrous. (the part about atavistic distrust and genetic memory)
I am fairly sure that even among white males in the US, most are children of immigrants *after* 1812. I believe Mr. Collins to be mistaken about our (yes, I’m a white american male whose grandparents/great grandparents were all immigrants) collective heritage.
By his logic, Roger Moore would have made his money playing villains. That does not fit with my recollection.
I was indulging in hyperbole with the genetic memory comment. I think there is a cultural memory argument that might be seriously made however.
I stand by my thesis on movie villains however. Roger Moore’s accent is what Tom Wolfe called the ‘Mid Atlantic Man’, the genotype (I am using genotype metaphorically, not scientifically) of which is David Frost. Mid Atlantic Men have an accent which is tending toward the Central Ohio accent that is the standard for American news announcers. And the original movie Bond was a Scot – hardly the upperclass English accent I was talking about.
And my fervent apologies to any Brits who have taken offense at this. I certainly do not mean to equate you to teutons, nazi or otherwise. (Although Blair’s fixation with the EU does raise some questions about him.)
I am merely observing a Hollywood cultural phenomena that is historically ridiculous, but still apparently believable enough to have been accepted by average American moviegoers/voters over several generations. This may have created the perception or may have worked because of a preexisting perception. I submit that the perception exists.
Im not a supporter of Tony Blair or of his policies here in Britian, but that aside i do agree that he can be an excellent speaker and is inspiring to many people. Im not surprised that he is so popular in the states, if you consider the alternatives (namely dubya) , but i dont think that Blair is as good as he is made out to be by some Americans. I think in general most British people, and especialy british polititions, are more articulate and have more sophisisticated speech than the average american any way and that Blair is by far not the best politition in britian. His image and words are carefully crafted by party “spin doctors”, and off the cuff he could be beaten by the majority of members of the commons!
“I think in general most British people, and especialy british polititions, are more articulate and have more sophisisticated speech than the average american any way”— OUCH! I take it you’re not a politician then, Mr. Articulate?
And to everyone else… could someone please elaborate on Blair’s “socialist agenda”? As far as I can see it got lost somewhere in the shuffle…