You know that amendment Arnold’s people are talking about – the one where they eliminate the citizenship requirement to run for President?
Maybe we can use it for Tony Blair; after all, just because he was PM in the UK, he’s not otherwise Constitutionally disqualified from being elected President. He made a helluva speech yesterday (hat tip to Harry’s Place):
I know a large part of the public want to move on. Rightly they say the Government should concentrate on the issues that elected us in 1997: the economy, jobs, living standards, health, education, crime.
I share that view, and we are. But I know too that the nature of this issue over Iraq, stirring such bitter emotions as it does, can’t just be swept away as ill-fitting the pre-occupations of the man and woman on the street.
Real threat
This is not simply because of the gravity of war; or the continued engagement of British troops and civilians in Iraq; or even because of reflections made on the integrity of the prime minister.
It is because it was in March 2003 and remains my fervent view that the nature of the global threat we face in Britain and round the world is real and existential and it is the task of leadership to expose it and fight it, whatever the political cost; and that the true danger is not to any single politician’s reputation, but to our country if we now ignore this threat or erase it from the agenda in embarrassment at the difficulties it causes.
I want to quote the whole thing here, it’s just so damn good, direct, human (in the sense of humanizing the decisions which he felt he had to make), and in my mind, right. But go click through, now please, and read it.
Pass this speech around to your friends. Let’s make sure everyone sees it as we try and make up our minds about what we have done and what we need to do. Then scroll down, and compare it to Kerry’s keynote on security and terror, and understand why I can’t just jump on his bandwagon.
Wow.
If the Arnold amendment passess, Tony Blair will be America’s first foreign-born Prime Minister.
As a conservative, that worries me in some ways. But that’s a bet I’d stake a goodly amount of cash on.
Dear A. L.:
I second Joe’s wow.
We simply have no politician in either party who is capable of such direct, forceful, articulate speech. The “Arnold amendment” will never pass. But this speech is GWB’s campaign commercial.
I’ve always been extremely impressed with Blair’s speaking ability, and I thought his speech to Congress was the single best justification for invading Iraq put forward by anyone.
Bush’s speeches can be superb as well–note the one he gave on his trip to London. But the issue’s a simple one that doesn’t really require eloquence, and eloquence may actually hurt. Few in the UK applaud “Phoney Tony” [UK spelling] and his eloquent speeches.
Bush needs to say, again and again, in simple words that the war is THE overriding issue and that we will prosecute this war relentlessly and on multiple fronts: in Iraq, against Iran, with special ops, with intelligence, with diplomacy, with sanctions against the mullahs, with intelligent efforts to foster moderate, pluralist forces across the muslim world.
Focus, Benjamin, focus. Leave the perfumed words to others.
I like the Bush/Blair combination. They complement each other nicely at joint speeches. Bush provides the cowboy “This is what we are going to do come hell or high water.” and Blair provides a very eloqent “And this is why people should trust us.”
That’s a nice idea, but the simple fact is that Blair’s trust ratings in the UK are even lower than Bush’s in the US. The fact is that, like Churchill in the mid-1930s, these politicians are way ahead of the people and may remain so for years to come. Speechifying won’t bring the public around; only catastrophe will, I’m afraid.
There are high points and low points in Mr. Blair’s speech, yet there is a fundamental weakness.
He speaks of the need for various “collective” arrangements and decisions to advance a global theory of permissible intervention and pre-emption.
As the world is presently arranged and exists, there is likely to be little possibility of such a “world” consensus. Honestly, different nations are like individual people, with there own, somtimes justifiable, self interests. Expecting the UN to heal itself or be healed in a generation is unlikely also.
There will be nations willing to act in concert toward a common, desirable goal, on ad hoc basis, but they will face the umbrage of the “un-
aligned” and subtly opposite interests.
We will have to pick and choose our allies carefully in the WOT, those willing to sustain the effort over the long haul, the gray years ahead. To quote another great son of the United Kingdom: “This is not the end, or even the beginning of the end. But may be the end of the beginning.”
Yah, I linked to this speech, too, and thought it was important that Michael Howard said positive things after it rather than ripping it (quite different than the reaction to things by the Loyal Opposition over here).
Never the less, there’s only one problem with Blair’s oratory: his rhetoric is discounted in Britain. There are lots of reasons for that, having to do with Blair’s political history.
But you’re right, he might have a better shot over here. Which is unfortunate, because we need articulate allies overseas who can help shape & promote policies. So here’s an issue where Blair has found and articulates principle, but he’s unable to persuade his audience – the British public – because of, well, their views of Blair.
Not just their views of Blair, mind you, but their views of the US as well. The Beeb is still popular over on the other side of the pond, despite its anti-US agenda. Or perhaps because of it. Anti-American though left over from the Cold War is still strong in Europe, and the US as well.
So, blackberry, want to step up and make an argument supporting that?
A.L.
Blackberry: care to provide an argument to support the assertion? Anyhow, that comment is just evidence of what I was saying.
FH: Yah, true. Blair tries to combat that anti-Americanism, but again his ability to do so effectively and persuasively, despite his manifest skill at oratory, is undermined and rendered ineffectual by the same thing.
It goes back to when Blair was rising to power and bringing Labour with him. While he garnered support, he never garnered much respect. People viewed him as an opportunist. In this his ability to forcefully argue his position may, ironically, be a drawback because he was and is able to do the same even on matters where he lacked (or was believed to lack) conviction. So people started discounting Blair’s words over time but in increasing numbers.
Now, I know why A.L. likes such speeches, for the same reasons I do – presenting the case in an articulate, well-argued fashion is needed to shore up and gain public support. The purpose of a good speech isn’the speech itself, but it’s ability to persuade, to gain or keep support. But the problem with the Blair speeches that we all love over here is that they don’t have that impact.
I love ’em, but then I don’t really need much shoring up, and neither does Armed Liberal or Joe Katzman. The waverers and the doubters do, but they look at Blair speeches with a jaundiced eye as a result of his accumulated political history on both large and small matters.
Oh, one thing to clarify: by “waverers and doubters” I don’t mean opponents, who are likely to remain opposed regardless of any argument. I mean those who might possibly, in favorable circumstances, be persuaded.
The Blair speeches that we love don’t move opinion, and I doubt this one will either. It’s a great speech, but in the end “not really” if it doesn’t have an impact.
Since people are making the Churchill comparison maybe people will look back on the speeches and say they should have listened, the way people looked back on Churchill’s speeches in the Commons during the ’30s and wished they had been listened to.
But the cost there for not heeding those words and making the preparations sooner ended up being high. What price will be paid here? All we can say is we do not know.
Joe wrote:
Of course, he’d also be our first PM. 8-)~
Speaking of which, I’m growing to not mind the idea of America joining the Commonwealth and accepting the Queen as a sovereign (the Head of State). It’ll never happen, but I wouldn’t mind if it did, and that’s a change.
Saying that “Blair and the British are nothing” disparages the significant sacrifices of British soldiers fighting at our side. Whatever may be said about Blair’s position on the UN or the EU – and I can and have said a lot – failing to appreciate their standing by our side, on the ground, where it matters, sticking with it even though Blair’s hopes for explicit UN endorsement in a second resolution (actually, Nth Resolution) didn’t come to pass – shows a lack of awareness, IMO. It’s a bit harsh.
Now, turning back to my other point, here is a Torygraph editorial today:
It goes on a bit later:
(the para starting “Cut to. . .” was also quoted from the Torygraph, but for some reason comments turned off blockquote & italics on me there).
We can even put a sign over the camps, right Blackberry? Something along the lines of “Arbeit Mact Frei”.
That’s been done to death though, I suppose.
Blackberry, you’re feeling kind of troll-like to me here. And since by our policy, the post author determines who can comments on posts, I’m going to politely ask you to disassociate yourself from the explicit intent of your last comment – that setting up camps is something you want to do.
A.L.
Blackberry’s comments are gone and he’s banned.
I’m not fond of people who post pro-death camp comments on my posts. I gave Blackberry a chance to retract or explain, and s/he didn’t.
Email bounced, too.
A.L.
USA has, what, 220 million citizens? You aholes want to outsource the presidency too?
We have plenty of real Americans who can do the job.
By the way, Arnold is about to be Anchlauss’d, if you know what I mean.
If the Americans want Tony Blair, then as far as I am concerned they can have him. TB does speak a good speech on occasion. His speech to the Senate (or Congress, I forget which) and his latest on terrorism are had to fault for the language and sentiment. The problem is that TB is inconsistent with the application and is sometimes unwilling to endure confrontation and the possibility of failure. As an example, the 1998 Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland was predicated on the terrorists of both sides foreswearing violence and agreeing to use solely democratic means to power. However, at the moment there is no devolved government in Northern Ireland because of Sinn Fein/IRA’s refusal to unambiguously give up weapons and desist from indulging in violence (punishment beatings etc.) and from preparing for the continuation of terrorism (continuing to carry out recces of potential targets etc.) The underlying reason for this was TB’s unwillingness to be inflexible with Sinn Fein/IRA and repeatedly gave concessions to them “to go the extra mile for peace.” If he had walked the walk vis a vis the Good Friday agreement, genuine peace and democracy in Northern Ireland would be that much more secure.
BJ, that is tripe. For over 700 years the Irish have been trying to get the English out of Ireland. ALL of them from ALL of Ireland. The ‘strife’ will be finished when that happens. Not a second sooner. When will you morooners figure that out?
Kerry akbar
ableiter:
I suggest you learn something about Northern Ireland before making your pronouncements. It might save you from looking like an idiot.
The majority of the population of Northern Ireland are both Irish and unionist i.e. we wish to remain part of the United Kingdom. At the same time,we are most definitely NOT English.
You can either claim that we are not Irish, because of our religious traditions (which is a mistake, as not a few Catholics are unionist too), or simply because if we were Irish we should share your opinions, and therefore have no right to a say, and should leave. Let he who would make us try his worst.
If strife will only cease when we leave, you can look forward to another 700 years of it, at least.
4107 How can this all be right? Check out my site http://www.pai-gow-keno.com
2634 http://www.e-roulette.info