The campaign to become Mayor of London must be taking its toll. Boris Johnson writes today that the interests of the US and the rest of the world would be best served if Hillary Clinton reaches the White House. His reasoning is thin at best. Perhaps the real problem is that America, even though it is such a vast nation, has only been able to produce Presidential candidates of such dreadful quality as this lot (I am afraid that applies partly even to Ron Paul, for whom I have a lot of sympathy).
|
|||||
|
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 |
13 comments to A dodgy recommendation |
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. |
|||||
That is certainly some pretty pathetic reasoning by Boris.
The dearth of decent candidates is unfortunately hardly a uniquely American problem.
Could be a piece of attempted manipulation by Bozza. Hillary is the Democratic candidate most likely to lose to any Republican front-runner; with Hillary as the Democrat candidate, the Republicans have their best chance of winning.
Hillary?
I’m not challenging your assertion, but it’s a new idea to me. Could you explain it a bit more? What gives the other candidates an edge over Hillary, vis-a-vis a Republican opponent? And why doesn’t it matter which Republican opponent?
Tedd,
Could you explain where does this assertion come from, please?
The fact that you may disagree with the politics of some, most, or all of them, does not imply they are bad candidates; you (I certainly do) may think the Hillary Clinton is the last person the Americans should vote for, but no one can deny her campaign has been well organized, focused, and so far, successful. The same goes for Rudy Giuliani; that an anti-gun pro-abortion New Yorker is still the leading contender for the Republican nomination speaks volumes for the quality of his campaign organisation and the guy’s personal charisma. Political undesirability should not be confused with qualification as a candidate.
I think that it goes without saying that the fact a person even considers voting Republican is a sure sign that person cannot stand Hillary. But, I have the feeling that there are quite a few people who would never vote Republican, and routinely vote Democrat, that cannot stand her as well. Not only that many people find her utterly obnoxious, but I think that the fact she is a woman also has a role: am I wrong in thinking that there are still a few of the Good Ol’ Boys (in the sexist, not the racist sense) types among the Democratic voters? After all, Slick Willy is one.
Frederick, since you ask, my low regard for the candidates is that most of them form into the tribal mindsets of Big Government conservatism vs Big Government left/liberalism; the Republicans, even Thompson, lack much inspiration and have not been clear enough on the need to roll back the state. Their organisational powers may be wonderful, but so what? Attila the Hun was a great organiser but I would not vote for him.
Boris Johnson is not Red Ken.
That is why I would (if I lived in London) support Boris Johnson.
I know Mr Johnson is not a profound thinker. After all he attacks over regulation – and then does not demand powers back from the E.U. (the real source of more than 80% of all new regulations). And when he did make semi hostile noises about the E.U., some years ago, he ruined it by supporting Mr Clarke (a pro E.U. fanatic) for the leadership of the Conservative Party.
However, your claims about the candidates for President of the United States are unfair (in what follows I leave out the Democrats as I agree with you that they are all no good).
Have you watched any of the Republican debates?
Have you watched any long interviews?
Have you read any of the Club for Growth reports on the candidates?
Have your read any other research papers on them?
Or are you just going by media reports?
If you are just going by media reports OF COURSE you haver a negative view of the Republican candidates.
As the recent report of the Institute for Excellence in Journalism pointed out, the vast majority of newspapers and all the national television stations (bar Fox) have presented a wildly distored and biased view of the Republican candiates (compared to their coverage of the Democrats).
For the record:
Although he said and did various naughty things in the New York City context, Rudy G. had a good record as Mayor and was a brave prosecutor.
Yes he did go after some businessmen, but he was not like the nutjob who went on to be the present Governor of New York State. Crime (both Mafia and unorganized) was Rudy G.s basic target.
On economic matters the man cut taxes (in the face of council dominated by the Democrats – and a media, led by the New York Times, that tried to smear him almost every day).
And the former Mayor is very close to Steve Forbes (the man runs his campaign) and has lots of good ideas about reducing taxes and bringing free market reforms to health care.
“But I want a proper Conservative, totally against gun control and stuff”.
O.K. What about Fred Thompson.
Contrary to what many people think John McCain has a fairly conservative voting record – but Fred Thompson has a better one (not a perfect record – but at least as good as any Republican candidate for President since Goldwater in 1964).
And the man has a background of going after corrupt people – such as the former Governor of Tennessee, and left the Senate (he was very popular in Tennessee and would have reelected) because he felt that an individual Senator could not roll back government in vital areas like the ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS (the knife at the heart of the Republic).
“No I want a perfect record, no pork and so on.”
O.K. What about Tom Tancredo?
No chance to win – but an almost perfect domestic and economic policy voting record.
If I may be harsh (well I always am anyway) your praise for Ron Paul shows you are out of date in terms of what people have been doing.
I am NOT talking about Congressman Paul’s record of voting against almost every trade treaty (in practice Ron Paul votes with Protectionist Democrats at least as much as Duncan Hunter does) – because Ron Paul has a defence for that.
“I do not believe in complicated treaties, I believe in unilateral free trade or nothing”.
O.K. that is a stand of principle.
What I am talking about is all the PORK that Ron Paul has voted for over the last year.
And not just in his own district.
Nonsense as far away as San Francisco has got his vote.
I do not know why this is so (although I can guess – a knock on effect of the people he has got into bed with since he started the run for President), but for the great enemy of “unconstitutional spending” it is not good.
In short the one man you praised is the one candidate who has got worse over the last year.
All in all there are two candidates with good military records (John McCain and Duncan Hunter – the latter one of the top defence experts in the whole nation, and whose son is busy fighting as I write this) and Ron Paul also served – in the United States Air Force. And there is Fred Thompson and Tom Tancredo who have very good records and have lots of ideas (although Tancredo choose to stress one issue, a choice that undermined him from the start).
And there is Rudy G. with a good record as Mayor of New York (both on crime and on taxe) and with lots of free market (both Forbes and Cato Institute ideas). and with good strength on national security.
Indeed ANY of the Republican Candidates for President that I have mentioned (bar Ron Paul) would be a good Commander in Chief.
I think I would vote (if I had a vote) for Fred Thompson – but really you are spoilt for choice.
There are lots of good people running.
In case anyone says “you have not discussed Mitt Romney or Governor Huckabee”, this was not an oversight on my part.
Hillary Rodham Antichrist also has the highest negatives of any candidate in history — and she scores especially high in what is known as the “broken glass” response (“I’d crawl over broken glass to vote against her”).
Add to that the fact that a large number of voters (not just Republicans) have no desire to let her husband anywhere near the White House again, and you have a perfect disaster awaiting the Democrats in ’08.
The interests of the United States and the rest of the world are best served if Hilary Clinton reaches the White House, stays for a while, and then has to leave with the rest of the tour group.
Akaky,
Care to explain the logic behind that one!?
The last thing anyone needs is the Democrats controlling the White House AND both houses of Congress.
Quite so Frederick.
And whatever may have been true in the past, the first order of business (should the Democrats gain control of the White House as well as Congress) will be to gain total control of the media.
That has long been the dream – total control of both education and the media to create people who will support the “just society”.
News International (and so on) will do a deal – or (in the unlikely event they refuse) they will be destroyed by the “fairness doctrine” and by “anti trust” and tax audits (and so on).