American Republicans frighten me.
As much as their pup Abbott's Australian branch.
So like loudmouth/Joe I am loving it.
Fight you sons of unwed parents.

Dear stevenlmeyer,

I hear you and my conspiracy theory is only a little less Machiavellian I suppose.

Remember some of those ads funded by Adelson and directed at Romney were brutal.

To me Aledson is basically forcing Romney to sing for his supper. A little over a month ago Romney started to really mimic Gingrich’s rhetoric on Israel such as agreeing to move the US embassy to Jerusalem if elected. There will come a time when Romney needs to see the back of Gingrich and Aledson holds that key. He is showing quite bluntly that he is ready to pay to get what he wants. Gingrich, who has the morals of an alley cat and desperately needed a backer, was an easy mark.

Romney is tougher because of large donations from elsewhere and is being left to stew a little but is sure to come around. Aledson is just after the best deal for his dollars as possible and the crazy Super PAC system allow him to do just that.

I tend to think money in politics serves two types of function for the donor. One is the help it gives to the campaign effort of the candidate you are supporting, the second is to gain access and influence. The first is the provence of you and I, the second is afforded those in Aledson’s position.

So in a sense I agree his funding of Gingrich must give him a stronger hand over Romney and is probably very good value for money.

CSteele !

Oh ye, of little faith ! Obama will win the election, regardless of whatever oaf the Republicans put up. Sit back and enjoy the show !

Cheers,

Joe

Loudmouth

Tom Hanks is not really the dimwit he played in Forrest Gump.

Russell Crowe is not really the schizophrenic mathematical genius he played as John Nash in "A beautiful Mind."

Obama is not really the liberal-leftie he played when running in 2008.

And the Republican candidates are not "oafs." They are smart men playing the parts that they believe give them the best chance of winning the nomination.

It's theatre Loudmouth.

And, BTW, Julia Gillard is not the wicked witch of the west and Tony Abbott is not a mad monk. That too is theatre.

csteele,

Adelson's support of Romney may have caused the latter to ratchet up his pro-Israel rhetoric and Adelson may regard that as a bonus. However presidential candidates have been promising to move the US Embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem for decades. I think it's about as likely to happen as the swift closure of Guantanamo or the end of drone strikes.

Adelson knows that any president, whether his name be Gingrich, Obama, Romney, Santorum or Ebenezer Schlipperdillerich, will ditch Israel in an instant if he perceives it in his interest, or in his party's interest, to do so.

To repeat, it's theatre. It is very hard to discern what is real and what is part of the show.

Who will win in November?

Generally the voters will give a new party in the White House another go unless the economy tanks or there is some kind of foreign policy disaster. As the saying goes, you cannot win on foreign policy but you can lose.

I think that may actually be the problem, stevenlmeyer.

>>...the Republican candidates are not "oafs." They are smart men playing the parts that they believe give them the best chance of winning the nomination<<

Unfortunately (for them) there is a massive difference between winning the nomination for the Republican Party, and going on to win an election against the Democrats. Barry Goldwater's experiences should be front-and-centre of the Republican backroom boys' calculations - remember these famous words from his acceptance speech...

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

What a wally! His "extremism in the defense of liberty" included initiating nuclear conflict ("Let's lob a nuclear bomb into the men's room at the Kremlin"), and I'm sure Obama's staff will come up with some equally exciting defences as Johnson's did, back in 1964:

"In your guts, you know he's nuts"

Yep. It's theatre all right.

Eugène Ionesco springs to mind...

How is it that America with a population of 300m*, manage to get such a bunch of imbeciles as president. My adult life spans the presidency's from Nixon to Obama, that is 8 different men. Besides all being male they all have been fairly mediocre individuals. Particularly on the Republican side they have been mostly a mundane collection of clowns. A couple of presidents I single out as the dopiest of the dope's staring with Richard Nixon, a boozing fool who was drummed out of office, they got that right. Jimmy Carter, what can I say, a peanut of an intellect. No sooner had Jimmy departed than the fool of fools Ronnie Reagan lands in the oval office. The Bush boys, a pair of jerks. If George W learned anything from daddy it was how to be a bigger dumbo than dad. Clinton, the bloke who never had sex, surprisingly one of the better ones , not that hard when you appraise the other contenders. Some are not even worth a mention Ford, oh no! Obama, running second on my list as not the worse. Overall winner for me getting the Bedtime for Bozo award is Ronald Regan, I still believe John Howard is the love child of Ronnie and Margie Thatcher. Coming a close second would have to be George W Bush a supreme fool amongst fools.
I/m also interested in how they get these fools to run. They conduct this crazy show call 'The biggest Jerk' sometimes refered too as the primaries and the 2 dopes with the most votes from all the little dopes get to go head to head to see which dope will sit in the White House for the next 4 years. What a system! It seems any president that shows any potential at all, Kennedy, Lincoln, they shoot, that keeps the strain pure.