Anyone have anything to say to John Bolton, the former UN ambassador and
I came across him on my trip to London this week and he has agreed to come on to next Sunday in DC, to talk about his vision for the world.
I would not normally use this space to promote a show but this is a genuine chance for you to speak to him so it seems reasonable.
I will also ask him about his political ambitions now that the book is done. The Senate maybe? The
I finally got on my plane to London and found myself face-to-face with the Foreign Secretary, returning from his time at the his in the locker above him.
How wonderful and democratic and low-key and BRITISH it is that this is I must admit I felt a real British pride as we hobbled late into London Heathrow and on the tarmac for a place to be found to park the plane... and all these inconveniences were suffered by all of us together, albeit at different ends of the plane - like the Royal Family staying in London during the Blitz.
I am a great admirer of the White House and State Department travel arrangements - I love it that they have big planes and they bring all their own fuel and they close down airspace and all the rest of it. I particularly like the US arrangement of journalists travelling with the pool not having to show passports to any foreigners on any occasion.
But there is still room for the low-key British way of doing things.
Dick Cheney's reminds us all that he is plainly made of something very tough. Physically and mentally he is hard. He can overcome adversity.
But he does not win every battle: I was talking the other day to a former senior adviser of his about - a process the adviser thinks is barmy and merely encourages radicalisation and posturing, delaying peace. The adviser preferred secret deals, tacit understandings, unpublicised channels. He could almost have been Dick himself (he was not, I hasten to add) - but the Annapolis push proves that the VP is not running the Bush show at the moment.
Should he be there at all though?
I am writing this at Dulles airport on my way for a brief trip to London to help arrange the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ's coverage of the 2008 election and take part in some broadcast discussions about the way the land lies. I remember telling one of those panels a year ago that Dick Cheney might well resign in 2007 and be replaced by an anointed candidate around whom the Republicans could unite as their man for 2008. The Foreign Editor, Jon Williams, rang me afterwards to see if I was feeling all right...
So I was wrong. But the Republican strategist who suggested the idea to me (none of my predictions are my own, though I will pretend they are if they ever come true) had in mind the elevation of one to the post of VP.
And now, frankly, the idea really does look to have been rather inspired. Giuliani's status could have been enhanced by the job and the set aside by a period at the helm or close to it. And yet it was not to be; partly because the Bushies do not like Giuliani, partly because Giuliani himself might have fancied his chances untethered to a sinking ship (wrongly I think), and mostly - I guess - because of that Cheney toughness, that would have taken hold of the idea and throttled it.
Did I feel safer at Thanksgiving or less safe? You see, I spent the day in the Commonwealth of Virginia - just across the Potomac river, but light years from Washington DC in one particular respect. In Virginia I was in a home where the owner could carry a concealed weapon. In DC - even in my own home/castle - I cannot.
I am not sure whether my host exercises his right under Virginia law (the issue didn't come up over the turkey) but he has the option and I do not. But change is in the air and it's a change the Democrats might well view with trepidation.
There is so much else going on - at home and abroad - that the Supreme Court's decision to hear its first gun rights case for a generation has somehow slipped under the radar. But is gun control a new "wedge issue" about to replace abortion in its ability to damage the Democrats and rally Republicans?
The case the Court is hearing is an appeal by the government of the District of Columbia (that's Washington DC, the nation's capital) against a lower court decision chucking out the city's ban on handguns. The second amendment of the US Constitution plainly gives individuals a right to bear arms.
Or does it?
That is the question before the Supreme Court and it is a pretty fundamental one. The justices will think about it next spring and decide by the summer. Whichever way the court rules it is likely to be a big deal and a big deal coming just months before the 2008 presidential poll, a poll in which Democrats would like to carry on the progress they made in the 2006 mid-terms in capturing rural conservative voters who are very keen on their weapons.
Might the Democrats be forced on to the defensive? Or is the fact that the police in DC are among those campaigning to keep the ban rather helpful to those Democrats who might want to make the case to the nation that sensible gun laws enforce people's fundamental rights to stay alive? What does Hillary (to pick a name at random) think the court should do?
Happy Thanksgiving! It is probably a bit uncool to be blogging on this sacred day (NB for readers outside the US, this is the biggest and the best American holiday; uniquely and brilliantly American in that it is secular if you want, religious if you want, but always and throughout the land focused on the simple homespun fondness of family).
Anyway a number of you voiced reasoned (and reasonable) scepticism about my suggestion that the Democrats misunderstand the vibe of the moment when they concentrate so heavily on getting out of Iraq rather than winning (whatever that could mean at this late stage).
But the drip-drip of stories suggesting significant change in Iraq continues – first with the and most recently the British . I am not suggesting for a minute that Iraq is fixed – and that is not the suggestion of these stories – but the mood seems to be importantly upbeat and the Democrats could surely do themselves damage if they miss the boat.
They don’t need to embrace the war, but they need to recognise that there might be more options about how to end it than seemed to be the case until recently. To be anti-war but pro-success seems to me to be a reasonable and defensible position.
The news that the British government has with the personal and financial details of nearly half the population will lead many Americans to wonder two things: 1) why are the Brits and their government so cosy, and 2) is this not further proof that this such cosiness only leads to bad things in the long term?
It is living proof, is it not, of the view that government is the problem not the solution? This is not just a Republican view either; Americans of all political stripes are much less likely than Brits to blame the government for their problems or look to the government for solutions. And yet... I detect an intense yearning among many Americans for a government that actually works, and a falling out of love with entirely private sector solutions to the nation's problems.
Of course no-one in the UK will ever trust the child benefit system again - but private companies gather data with even greater relentless efficiency and are just as capable of losing it or sharing it without our permission. I am typing this on a train between New York and Washington DC and no-one on the train can see what I am writing (most are on early Thanksgiving journeys and are asleep!) but plenty of companies (Google, Microsoft, the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ itself) have the power to access my actions this morning on this computer.
The torch of freedom in America used to be waved with great gusto by those who knocked government of all kinds, and would have seen the child benefit fiasco of further proof that they were right. And yet, after , there is a notion here that it is a little more complex than that. I suppose real would point out that you can choose which private sector entities to deal with, a choice not available when the State comes knocking at your door, but realistically can you? Should you?
The most interesting poll out this week is not about or ; it is a national survey conducted by Yahoo and the Associated Press. The offers a look at an important question: is 2008 a post-likeability election in which Americans make their choice irrespective of the "best guy to have a beer with" test?
The poll does throw up some wonderfully odd images, including a self-described die-hard Republican named Donald Stokes, who backs for president but, if he had to take a candidate on a family vacation, would take ! Eh? Has Mr Stokes not been listening to his party's message on Mr Edwards's trustworthiness?
Other choices are equally interesting, though more explicable. There's a Democrat, Charolette Thompson, who supports but when asked to choose a bowling partner opts for . I guess I can follow her thinking - he would be guaranteed to stay sober (Mormons don't drink) and play to win.
On the real issue: would you choose a candidate BECAUSE of their suitability for bowling or family fun, the answer is a resounding, and reassuring, no.
I saw Karl Rove (President Bush’s former bag-carrier) repeating the truism that Americans do not mind what faith a candidate professes, provided that he or she has some faith.
Let us assume the Bishop Rove is right. Where does this leave
Supporters of the Republican presidential candidate say voters in New Hampshire have been cold-called by "pollsters", who point out that the Mormon faith is odd.
At a party here in Washington recently, I conducted a scientific survey of my own.
I asked all those I met what they thought of Mormonism. The respondents (including a very senior member of a mainstream Christian denomination) all thought it was weird, weird, weird.
Several sniggered about multiple marriages, despite the fact that official Mormons have not been polygamous for a century.
My point is this. At the moment, with Mitt Romney refusing to get drawn into a defence of his faith, people are free to characterise it as they see fit. Perhaps he does need to address it full-on, and ask people to think about what Mormons do and what they stand for?
He would, after all, be taking a cue from Mormon culture, where the missionary aspect of the faith is hugely important.
I think if he began a thoroughgoing discussion of his faith, Americans would be fascinated, interested, and end up having their minds put at rest.
To continue my (un)scientific thought: the Latter Day Saints approached me more than a year ago through a Washington-based public relations company.
I have no particular sympathy for religion (as some have noted!), or indeed for public relations companies, but the experience was, well, transformative.
I met many Mormons, and not one I didn’t like. I do not care, and more importantly I do not think Americans will care, about their belief that the Garden of Eden might be located in
Much more important, their hearts are often in the right place. They are good to their kids and thoughtful about the world. Not bad starting qualities for a president.
The Democrats' debate in Las Vegas was interesting. I loved the introduction of a heckler in the early stages - presumably paid for by to give the whole thing a less plastic feel.
On substance: I will leave the discussion of asbestos pant-suit to other, less salubrious outlets. But it seems to me that the Democrats, all of them, are entering potentially hazardous ground on Iraq. It was striking that they talked, all of them, about ending the war. They used that word: ending. They did not use the word with the same number of syllables but an altogether different feel: winning. Now, a few months ago the E word sounded just fine to most Americans and the W word rather unrealistic, even idiotic and insulting. But now?
Politics is about narrative and the narrative at the moment is of a war that is no longer out of control. It could, of course, go downhill again rapidly but at the moment it is not. For the Democrats, isn't this is a trap even bigger than driving licences for illegal immigrants? Might they not sleepwalk into calling for a war to end that is actually being won?
And a word to CNN: years ago at my English boarding school we were told not to be boastful. Referring to your talented and thoughtful team of commentators and reporters as "the best political team on television" or whatever the precise phrase is, demeans them and you. After all, this is the "best website in cyberspace" and I am the "best ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ reporter writing this blog" but neither piece of information is interesting or validating unless it comes from others. The willingness of Americans to be proud of their achievements and unashamed to trumpet them is - in my humble view - a hugely attractive trait. But CNN has gone too far...
What a wonderful array of commentary on the subject of anti-Americanism!
It is an important topic and anyone interested could do worse than read the four-volume collection of writings on it entitled "Anti-Americanism: History, Causes, Themes," edited by my friend of Griffith University in Australia.
I took the books on a train to New York the other day and quite a crowd gathered to leaf through them! Special thanks to Mr Curley for the poem - with your permission I would like to use that elsewhere - and to Jack Hughes for making a trenchant point about the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ.
For what it is worth I agree with you about execution in the US getting obsessive coverage from us foreigners while the same issue in China receives little attention. It is one of the pitfalls of reporting open versus closed societies.
But boy does the dotty stuff keep happening here: the latest being governor Sonny Perdue's prayers for rain on the steps of the Atlanta statehouse. Anti-Americans, the softer European variety, look at that kind of behaviour and wonder at America's capacity for self-delusion and religious literalism. Nothing much separated that gathering from a get-together of Stone Age men, let's face it.
Although of course 250 Georgians do not represent the nation; as someone in the blog put it, in one pellucid phrase: "Good gracious, how embarrassing!"
This from the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown in "It is no secret that I am a lifelong admirer of America. I have no truck with anti-Americanism in Britain or elsewhere in Europe."
So what is this anti-Americanism with which the PM will have no truck? I am never quite sure what people mean by the term and nobody ever seems to define it before using it, which is a pity because it makes it easier for the nastier brands of it to hide around, cloaked by respectability, as if it might be something with which some prime ministers might reasonably have some truck.
Visceral anti-Americanism, bordering on racism, portrays the United States and its citizens as worthy of contempt in almost all circumstances. This anti-Americanism exists, of that there is no doubt. It is often to be found on the left, particularly among those who see globalisation as a threat. But in its European guise it has cropped up historically on the right as well among those who fear and despise a society based on ties of free association rather than kinship and history.
But plenty of anti-Americans claim - I know this well having presented a on the subject - that their brand of anti-Americanism is simply a rational and reasoned opposition to the things America DOES. It's the policies, stupid. You can admire America they say, or admire individual Americans, but still hate the guts of the things America does.
Gordon Brown's Labour party contains a good many of that second category of anti-Americans. Assuming he has no truck with either form of anti-Americanism I wonder if he will bring this second group round to his way of thinking. I suspect he will wait until January 2009 to try...
A pungent contribution to the campaign fun from Mark Salter of the team. He told the AP: " once promised not to self-fund his campaign, and ever since has been busy robbing his kids' inheritance to do just that. If hypocrisy were an Olympic sport, Mitt Romney would be a multiple gold medal winner."
Which is worse, I wonder: funding your campaign with your own hard-earned dough or getting others - each possessing his or her own agenda - to put their cash your way?
Americans respect the rights of individuals to spend their money as they see fit and plenty of independent-minded Americans might still rally behind a run next year; but should someone be able to buy their way into the running? Should there be a ban on the amount of your own money you can use (or borrow) to get a seat at the table? Might President Bloomberg be just the fellow to do this?
I wonder what kind of Secretary the former New York City police commissioner would have made? As Wellington said of his own troops, "I don't know whether they frighten the enemy, but by God they frighten me.''
Anyway it was not to be: politically the issue now is not whether the Kerik court case will damage his mentor (a little but not enough to make a difference, is the answer) no, the issue is what the whole Kerik debacle does to relations between and Giuliani, if indeed the former New York mayor wins the Republican nomination.
I have it on good authority that the president has already made it clear that he regarded the recommendation from Rudy that Kerik was the right man for the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖland Security job as a major blunder, a blunder that calls into question Mr Giuliani's suitability as a presidential candidate.
So if, for the sake of argument, calls on the White House for help in his hour of need during the primaries, I wonder if it might be forthcoming in the form of sources letting it be known that the current administration feels the former New York mayor is flawed? Would it matter? Would anyone take any notice? Would it even assist Giuliani for a rift to open up?
I cannot decide whether "tip-gate" is nonsense or not. It was who revealed, in a typically solid and un-flashy piece of follow-up journalism, that the hard-working and hard-up woman who served at a restaurant in Iowa recently, and whose life story the candidate later used in her speech, had not been left a tip. At least that was what the waitress herself said.
In a follow-up to the follow-up, the revealed that the restaurant owner had been left a tip which through some mistake had not been shared out, and it was not a bad one: $100 on a total bill of $157! So no story. And yet ... the NPR piece had also followed-up a terribly sad case of a woman whose brother is suffering from cancer and who had turned up at a rally looking for solace. The candidate had addressed her, and held her hand. He kind of promised to write the brother a note as well ("if I have time") but, you guessed it, the note never came. And yet this woman refused to be even slightly cross. "I do the same thing with friends of mine," she said.
Now here is the point: the Clinton story has the candidate looking bad even though she actually behaved just fine; the Obama story ends with the candidate genuinely forgiven and honoured though, frankly, he fell down on the job. Does this tell us something bigger and more important about charm and politics? Such as, you either have it or you don't and money (or even a good tip badly administered) cannot buy it?
Let's take the bull by the horns. I like the fellow: I have just been watching him clashing with the Chairman of the Fed, . He made, as he often does, a kind of "emperor's new clothes" case; arguing that US interest rates have been artificially low for many years, the result of which has been to debauch the currency and store up in the US economy.
Ben Bernanke pointed out that a worker paid in dollars and spending in dollars does not suffer from a fall in the dollar's price abroad (unless he buys imported goods) but in a sense he and the congressman were not addressing the same subject; Ron Paul talks very big picture. And his voice is an interesting one. (In case anyone hasn't heard of him we are talking about the Republican candidate, who is best known as the sole Republican opponent of the Iraq war.)
To me he is a wonderful reminder of the intellectual freedom that persists in American politics in spite of the deadening effect of money. I have about the need for those of us with claims to impartiality to treat those the parties regard as fringe candidates seriously; it is not for us to attack or defend, but to report and analyse.
But there is a risk, isn't there, that the voices backing these candidates become shrill, and annoy those they ought to be courting. Have we reached that stage? Not for me to say, of course...
The - the gay-friendly, abortion-tolerant, gun-hostile, former mayor of New York - by the evangelical broadcaster is breathtaking on all kinds of levels. Didn't Pat that 9/11 was a punishment visited on Gotham City by a vengeful God?
There was a wonderful moment at a debate a few months ago when lightning struck nearby while Rudy was talking about abortion - he paused and laughed! Supernatural interventions in human affairs are not for rigorous Rudy. He now gets the "free media" of the Robertson TV empire and its audience, having given nothing in return.
What a mess the religious right is in...
A year to go. The buzzword here on the subject of the 2008 presidential election is that it will be "transformative." Washington insiders nod sagely at this thought and go about their business warmed by its power. I am at a disadvantage though: I am not sure what "transformative" really means.
Does it mean a black man might take over, or a woman? To some that is it; particularly those who back as a generational - not just a racial - new start; a man who will take the nation beyond the stale battles of the baby-boom generation. But transformative means rather more, it seems...
The best explanation I have had came from the respected and super-smart pollster John Zogby, who kept off the personalities (at least on the record) but talked instead about the polling data that suggests a rare restiveness among the American people, a sense that the status quo is rotten. Zogby points out that FDR did not come to power with the New Deal in his pocket; Ronald Reagan did not have the battle plan to win the Cold War up his sleeve: it's just that both men were able to seize moments. Now is a moment to be seized; there are (to mix the metaphor) open doors to be pushed at.
So who is going to win? In London the other day a senior figure from the Tony Blair inner circle bet me fifty pounds that Barack Obama will be the Democrats' choice, pipping at the post. I doubt it: but the primaries are dynamic events in which (remember the ) stuff happens. And neither of those two candidates has any executive experience; might the party panic at the last moment and turn to , a governor, former cabinet member and UN ambassador?
As for the Republicans; there is a real danger that the media abuse heaped on all of their candidates will rather rebound on the commentators when someone is chosen and that someone becomes (as I am sure they will) a perfectly respectable presidential candidate. But Lord knows who it will be. My money is on a comeback, fuelled by improving news from Iraq and the desire for a grownup to take on the resurgent Democrats.
A friend of mine from California makes an intriguing suggestion: that the post of president should be left vacant this time round. Empty chair the rascals, substitute introspection and self-analysis for leadership, and try again in four years time.
PS: This is the first substantive post - the first of many - in my new blog. You can learn more about me here, my job here, or visit the of this blog. You could also subscribe to my RSS feed (or, indeed, click if you don't know what an RSS feed is).
There is nowhere in the world I would rather be than Washington DC. Sexier cities do exist of course, and less socially-divided places as well, but nowhere is as powerful, as full of news, and as vitally important to the lives and futures of us all. I have been here for six years and intend to stay for 600. My youngest child is American and my older ones sound American. And that's fine by me.
Washington is even more powerful than Brussels, where I was for three years before coming here, and from where I was (semi) expelled after suggesting that Prague might make a prettier capital of Europe.
These have been my only two foreign postings - although years ago I used to fly out of London on brief forays abroad (to the Maldives to cover what turned out to be an imaginary coup, for instance, and to Bosnia for an all-too-real war). I also spent time getting up at three in the morning, wearing makeup and feeling knackered, as the presenter of Breakfast News on ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ One.
Before that I was a reporter on the Today programme on Radio Four and way way back (if you're still reading this...) I had the honour of beginning my career in the wonderful ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ Northern Ireland office - Good Morning Ulster was the name of the programme and a very fine one it was, and doubtless still is.
I have never worked outside the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ unless you count a brief stint writing speeches for an MP and licking envelopes at a lobbying company called GJW Government Relations.
I am the product of a Quaker school so am incapable of lying. My alma mater is the world's finest, the from where I graduated in Economics back in 1983.
Jump to more content from this blog
Hello, I'm Justin Webb and I'm the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ's North America editor.
You can stay up to date with Justin Webb's America via these feeds.
Justin Webb's America Feed(RSS)
Justin Webb's America Feed(ATOM)
If you aren't sure what RSS is you'll find useful.
|
Nick Robinson: |
 |
|
Douglas Fraser: |
 |
|
Brian Taylor: |
 |
 |
|
Richard Black: |
 |
|
Jonathan Amos: |
 |
³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ Â© 2014 The ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.
