In a leading article in today’s Times, about the choice of the new US Treasury Secretary, there is this gem.
Not that you could tell from his signature, unless you’re a pharmacist and possess that special talent pharmacists have for reading doctors’ prescriptions.
Apparently, President Obama’s choice is Jack Lew, whose handwriting appears to be worse than mine.
The Sunday Times has a detailed statistical breakdown of the US Election.
Picking a few at random shows the problem the Republicans have.
1. Of the 17% of voters who say they never have any religious attendance, 62% voted for Obama.
2. Only 23% of Hispanic women and 33% of Hispanic men voted for Romney.
3. amongst voters under 29, 60% voted for Romney.
4. Only whites voted more for Romney than Obama.
Unless Obama makes a right Horlicks of the next four years, the person who stands for the Democrats in 2016 will be a shoe-in.
I’ve been following a well-known betting site and the odds yesterday swung slightly to Romney, but today they’re going towards Obama.
So the smart money says Obama. Or could the ups and downs mean that the smart money has hedged its bets and will win anyway?
I suspect so!
He’s rated at 1.53 and Romney is at 2.92.
Let’s hope it stays that way until after the election.
October 28th – Obama 1.48 Romney 3.05
November 5th (am) – Obama 1.24 Romney 5.00
November 5th (pm) – Obama 1.29 Romney 4.30
November 6th – Obama 1.27 Romney 4.30
Seeing the performance of the Labour Party today, I wouldn’t think that he would be worried much. Especially, as opinion polls seem to show that the public don’t trust Labour with the economy.
Much of what happens to the economy will happen anyway, as large job creation will be by big companies, who will do it based on their needs. There will also be a lot by the average people, who generally read the economy better than the politicians do, and act when they see gaps.
But what happens across the pond in November, will have a large effect on what happens in this country.
It’s probably true to say, that David Cameron and Barack Obama are very similar, although from different backgrounds. If Obama should remain US President, then business will be very much as before.
But Mitt Romney, a man who is the most religious US Presidential candidate in some time, would I think create problems for any British Prime Minister, if he got elected.
If for instance, the United States got involved in an Israeli-led attack on Iran, would we be capable of staying out of it. The majority of the British public would want no part of it, of that there is no doubt. And I suspect Cameron doesn’t either! But who knows what will happen, if Israel attacked Iran.
This is just one area, where Romney is downright dangerous.
And a world stirred up by Romney, would give a tremendous boost for the opposition in the UK. Especially one, who could play the Hate Romney card with impunity.
Let’s hope the American voters are sensible enough to send Romney packing.
I don’t really know, where I stand on WikiLeaks. I think that the content that has been disclosed shows how ill-advised so much of the United States and our, excursions into the Middle East have been. But we knew that anyway!
Whether Julian Assange did sexually assault the two Swedish women, for which that country is seeking extradition, is up to the Swedish courts to decide. I think that even if he is found guilty, he has nothing much to fear. Even in the UK, he’d probably not face a sentence of more than a few years, if found guilty for a similar offence.
His problem though is the United States, its courts and punishment system. They are so out of line with other countries like his own; Australia, Canada and most of Europe. He would probably get a total life sentence for disclosing the US diplomatic cables. Even in this country, I suspect he would get a sentence, but it wouldn’t be that long, as no-one is actually accusing him of stealing the information in the first place. In fact, it could be argued that he did the same as the Daily Telegraph did with MPs expenses. Was anybody prosecuted for their part in that affair? Only a few MPs, who had done wrong.
But then the United States is vindictive with a vengeance rather than a justice system in many instances.
So the Assange case is a bit like trying to make a reasoned decision in a room with a vicious bully outside. Remember too, that Obama has a difficult election coming up, and he would not want to appear soft. Ask Mormon Mitt on the right day and he would say that US troops should invade the embassy, if the British won’t do it.
As it stands at the moment, whilst he is in the Ecuadorian embassy, it’s all a bit difficult. Let’s face it, if Assange had been a citizen of that country and had published some of their secrets, he’d at least be in jail by now. Ecuador doesn’t come across to me, as a beacon of democracy
The only thing we can do, is persuade Assange to go to Sweden and face trial there. If we use force, then we’ll put all our diplomats around the world in danger.
I think there’s a fair chance, that when we have the next General Election, Assange will still be where he is now!
This statement of Barack Obama is very easy to say after the massacre in Aurora.
If America is thinking then they should change their culture and attitude to firearms. I read this article by Rod Dreher on the BBC’s web site. He is an American Conservative and makes some strong and well-thought points.
It shows how the problem is a lot worse than anybody in the UK thinks.
I do think though that spillover from American culture is behind some of the gun crime in the UK and other countries.
Jimmy Carter has attacked Barack Obama over human rights and especially assassination of possible terrorists using drone attacks. It’s here in the Independent.
I’ve always felt that Jimmy got a bad hand, when he was US President and is seriously underrated. On the other hand, Barack Obama is proving one of the most disappointing Presidents, I have witnessed. And I go back to Ike!
I’m unsure, that having a leader of a country with strong religious beliefs is a good idea. They need strong humanist principles, that are probably subscribed to, by most good people, but that is all.
After all, with the exception of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, I don’t think, we’ve had a Prime Minister in recent years, who went anywhere near a church, except for the usual ceremonial duties, like weddings, funerals and affairs of state.
You can argue, whether we did better under a leader, who regularly went to church or we didn’t. However, in my view to belong to a church with strong political views is wrong, as they might try to divert you from important policies. For instance, we have the stance of the Roman Catholic church on contraception.
I don’t think the leaders in countries like France, Germany and other well-respected nations have outrageous religious views.
So to have a US President, who is a Mormon like Mitt Romney, might just upset the balance in the world. Let’s hope the good citizens of the United States see sense and return Barack Obama for a second term, otherwise it might find itself in a minority of one on the world stage.
Read Mark Mardell’s view of Mitt Romney here. Here’s a paragraph from the article.
The Obama team also wants to promote the image of Mr Romney as very right wing.
Not simply conservative but old-fashioned. The out-of-touch old guy who would bring back the past. In an excellent, if long, article the New York Magazine quotes an unnamed Obama strategist: “He’s the fifties, he is retro, he is backward, and we are forward—that’s the basic construct.”
“If you’re a woman, you’re Hispanic, you’re young, or you’ve gotten left out, you look at Romney and say, ‘This guy is gonna take us back to the way it always was, and guess what? I’ve never been part of that.’”
He sounds the sort of guy, that most British politicians would instantly not warm to.