That Critical Endorsement.

With the American election looking like it is on a knife edge, it is clear that the voters are waiting on the thoughtful utterances of some random foreigner before making a final decision.

The candidate I am probably closest to is the Libertarian Party's Gary Johnson, but would only vote for him if I lived in a state where my vote doesn't matter. So on balance I want Romney to win.

He's not perfect and my endorsement depends largely on the assumption that some of his worse policies are merely campaign fodder not to be taken seriously- like his rhetoric on trade with China.

But he does have a track record of competence and that is the most important aspect of the job.

Also the Obama administration is not one that deserves reelection- the vast increase in spending even above the levels of the profligate Bush administration is dangerous for the world economy and although it's not my primary concern as a foreigner his domestic policies on things like education and welfare reform are rather destructive.

Race Baiting In The New York Times With Lee Siegel

Apparently Mitt Romney's campaign is succeeding because he's waycist!!!!! According to Lee Siegel:

But there has yet to be any discussion over the one quality that has subtly fueled his candidacy thus far and could well put him over the top in the fall: his race.

Yes, why haven't people noted the role of Romney's whiteness in beating Gingrich, Perry and Huntsman? I can't work it out.

Of course, I’m not talking about a strict count of melanin density. I’m referring to the countless subtle and not-so-subtle ways he telegraphs to a certain type of voter that he is the cultural alternative to America’s first black president.  

"Subtle" is the race baiter's code for "invented".

In this way, Mr. Romney’s Mormonism may end up being a critical advantage. Evangelicals might wring their hands over the prospect of a Mormon president, but there is no stronger bastion of pre-civil-rights-America whiteness than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

What about the New York Times editorial board? Mitt Romney's father George was a prominent supporter of civil rights and was spoken of favourably by Martin Luther King.

Yes, since 1978 the church has allowed blacks to become priests. But Mormonism is still imagined by its adherents as a religion founded by whites

So no Mormons can be president. I think Lee Siegheil needs to look closer to home for subtle racism.

It’s true that Mr. Romney’s opponents are all white as well. But each is tainted in his own way. Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich appear soft on Hispanic immigration, and Mr. Gingrich is hardly the standard-bearer for the invincible nuclear family.
Rick Santorum is an Italian-American Catholic

 What? So Catholicism means Santorum is insufficiently mainstream but Mormonism doesn't?

And Ron Paul’s isolationist conspiracy-mongering recalls, if anything, the radical-right fringe of the ’50s and ’60s, of the John Birchers and the followers of George Wallace, a manic moment even most evangelicals would rather forget.

So his being Mormon is even more racially provocative than you know- hating black people.

Contrast that with Mr. Romney’s meticulously cultivated whiteness. He is nearly always in immaculate white shirt sleeves. He is implacably polite,

Ah, so being polite and well dressed are white traits. Who's the racist here? Barack Obama got praised effusively for being polite and well dressed back in 2008. I'm glad I can prove my anti racism by saying that Lee Siegheil is a gutter dwelling, race baiting whore.

The whole fundamental conceit of Seigel's rant is that there is a significant body of opinion that is uniquely uncomfortable with Barack Obama and regards him as illegitimate because he is black. No evidence is made to support the notion that opponents of Obama would be perfectly relaxed if a white person was enacting the same policies or if Obama faces more delegitimisation than other Presidents (the conspiracy theories over Bush's wins in 2000 & 2004 would be an interesting place to start).

On the other hand the author clearly does regard Mr Romney as illegitimate because of his ethnic identity.

Prediction USA 2012

Back in 2008 I correctly predicted the outcomes of the Republican and Democratic primaries and the general election. In fairness my prediction of the British election was way off but like most people I am psychologically inclined to attribute my successes to talent and failures to bad luck.

The Republican Primary is much easier to predict this year simply because only one first class candidate has decided to put himself forward- Mitt Romney. There were other candidates who could have won, like Mike Huckabee and Jeb Bush, but they didn't run. Rick Perry should have put up a more impressive challenge than he did but that did not materialise.

Earlier this year I also predicted that Barack Obama would win a 2nd term, because of the weakness of the Republican candidates. However given how efficiently Mitt Romney's campaign has gone so far- with no sign of being perturbed by the succession of great right hopes who have come and gone- I now think he can overcome his history of ridiculous flip flopping to win against Obama.

So my final prediction is that Mitt Romney will be the president elect this time next year.

On The Republican Nomination

The Iowa straw poll did it's job of whittling down the field of candidates for the Republican nomination, with only Michelle Bachman, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney & Rick Perry likely to pick up serious numbers of delegates once voting begins in the primary process.

I agree with most mainstream pundits that only Romney and Perry can win the nomination. Both have lovely hair which is a key attribute in a presidential candidate. My preference is Romney because he is a highly effective leader in both government and business- and he can win the votes of moderates and even disgruntled liberals. Also Perry's record of cronyism and lack of concern about executing innocent people are disturbing.

For the last two years Romney's strategy has been to run as the candidate of economic competence for a general election that would be about the dismal record on jobs and growth by the Obama administration. Against the presumed candidates up until now- Huckabee, Palin, Pawlenty, Huntsman, Gingrich etc- he could reasonably claim to be far and away the most plausible man to turn around the US economy.

Rick Perry is the one candidate who Romney cannot play the economy card against with much success for the simple reason that Texas has an incredibly successful economy compared to the rest of the United States. There is a question of how much that has to do with Perry personally or how much he could apply Texan policies to the USA as a whole but politics is partly about being in the right place to take credit for good things that happen. He is also a better campaigner than Romney.

However I am going to predict a Romney win because:

• Bachman will take more votes from Perry.
• Romney is a more attractive candidate outside the South, support for him will be strong in the North East of course but also in the Mormon heavy Western states around Utah and the Mid West where his father was a successful governor.
• He has a campaign network in place from 2008 and will probably out organise Perry.
• The Republicans tend to nominate from the more moderate wing of the party.

It is a much more intriguing campaign than it looked a few months ago when Donald Trump & Herman Cain were the flavours of the month.

Obama Will Be A Two Term President

This poll of how Obama fares against against the leading Republican candidates- Romney, Palin, Huckabee & Gingrich- for the 2012 nomination is a bracing reality check to those who want to see the back of Obama. Not only does he still lead in all of the states that flipped from Bush in 04 to Obama in 08, against 3 of the 4 candidates he increases his lead- and this is in the middle of his term when little attention is being paid to his opponents and the economy remains dire.

This isn't due to Obama's brilliance, as the mid terms showed he is not wildly popular, but due to the weakness of the field. The strongest GOP candidate is Mitt Romney but his impressive track record in government and business is marred by his ridiculous flip flopping that reveal someone with few actual principles and will reduce him to a laughing stock in an election campaign. Palin has made no effort whatsoever to improve her standing with swing voters in the two years since her Vice Presidential candidacy. Gingrich's unedifying personal life and his track record of imploding will haunt his campaign. As for Huckabee, he has the right personality to be president but his actual policies are abysmal and often quite extreme.

There are other prominent Republicans who could beat Obama, but the nomination will almost certainly come down to one of those four because if someone hasn't carved themselves a niche among the GOP primary electorate by now then they probably won't be able to do it before 2012- so out go dull generic candidates like Tim Pawlenty, John Thune and the much hyped Jon Huntsman. Three candidates might have the profile to generate the enthusiasm and the money to run a successful campaign- Chris Christie, Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush- but they have all ruled out running.

So at the moment Obama looks like a very good bet for re-election.