Wednesday, February 23, 2005
It’s a geopolitical hat trick! – Mark Steyn explains how the political opponents of John Howard (Australia), Tony Blair and Dubya are facing defeat because they don’t get the “One Big Thing”: “Howard was supposed to be in trouble in last fall’s election, but he won big. Bush was supposed to be in trouble up until about 7pm Eastern on November 2nd, but he too won big. Blair was supposed to be in trouble over his “lies” on the war, but in the British election, likely to come in May, he’s now set for another landslide. Iraq, we were assured by all the commentators, was an electoral liability, and so it was – for the opposition parties.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
59% of the Australian voters went against Howard. He had a 3% margin of victory in a four-way race.
Bush's win was even closer, a 2.5% margin over Kerry.
In the last 125 years, the three smallest electoral college margins were claimed by George W. Bush (2004), by Woodrow Wilson (1916), and by George W. Bush (2000). The idea that these results may not represent historic mandates is whiny obstructionism, pure and simple.
You might want to take those quotation marks Steyn's got around the word "lies," and shift them over to the phrases "won big" and "another landslide." If Blair survives his election-- he's likely to hold his office but lose his Parliament majority-- it will be because the British Conservative party is currently as charismatic and well-run as the Democrats are here at home.
And a happy 25th anniversary of the U.S. hockey team's overwhelming trouncing of the Russian team.
Post a Comment