May 5, 2005
THE LIMEY GALE SAYERS (*):
Is Blair a Liar? Brits Don't Care (Max Boot, May 5, 2005, LA Times)
How can you tell if a political party is brain-dead? Easy. It spends an entire campaign denouncing the incumbent as a smarmy, good-for-nothing liar, rather than outlining its own agenda. The Republicans tried it against Bill Clinton in 1996, the Democrats tried it against George W. Bush in 2004, and now in Britain the Conservatives are trying it, with equal lack of success, against Tony Blair.Such a tactic is beguiling because, to True Believers, the other side's triumphs are never on the up and up; they must be the result of hoodwinking the hapless electorate. The problem with this approach was pointed out to me by a political strategist last week: "Voters think all politicians are liars. So telling them that someone is a particularly effective liar doesn't work."
It especially doesn't work for the Tories because they're accusing Prime Minister Blair of duplicity on an issue about which they actually agree with him. Conservative leader Michael Howard says he would have supported the invasion of Iraq even without weapons of mass destruction — the subject of Blair's supposed dissembling. By nevertheless making the L-word the centerpiece of today's election, Howard comes off as opportunistic and unprincipled.
Beyond the "liar liar" taunts, the Tories have little to offer British voters. Their agenda is essentially indistinguishable from the Labor Party's. The biggest change Howard has promised is a reduction in immigration. This may snare some votes among xenophobic yobs, but it has also led (Arnold Schwarzenegger, pay attention) to a backlash against "mean-spirited" right-wingers.
Much of the Tories' trouble is due to the skill with which Blair has seized the political center. He has run a tough, pro-American foreign policy while not interfering with a domestic economy that has produced 13 years of growth.
And he's a crypto-Catholic. He'd be a formidable candidate in the primaries of either party here.
N.B. Management was very disappointed in the abysmal performance on the last Gale Sayers reference, so we're authorized to give out a book this time.
NPR's Morning Edition had some American pollster in London talking about the final polls and the election and he said the issues were about domestic issues and the trust issue.
Specifically he spoke about the National Health Service and he described it as a "muched beloved" program. I may be wrong but I have never heard it referred to as such.
Posted by: pchuck at May 5, 2005 9:51 AMNHS is untouchable in Britain, even Thatcher didn't try anything and pointedly said she never would.
To understand why such a dreadful system is so beloved, keep in mind that it is almost 60 years old and before then the average Briton couldn't even afford the rudiments of health care.
Posted by: bart at May 5, 2005 10:12 AMsounds like the InstantMan's prediction is accurate...
Posted by: Chris B at May 5, 2005 10:54 AMYou mean he keeps scoring touchdowns? Blair's still got a ways to go to match Gale Sayers.
Posted by: pj at May 5, 2005 11:17 AMI've got it: Gale Sayers wrote "I Am Third" and both Bush & Blair embody the Third Way in politics...
Posted by: b at May 5, 2005 11:17 AMIf we were a monarchy we could buy him like the Brits did the Hanovarians.
Posted by: at May 5, 2005 11:32 AMSo does b get his (or her, sorry b) book or not?
Posted by: joe shropshire at May 5, 2005 11:33 AMSayers was a great cutter - could change direction instantly, befuddling the opposition - Blair has skills like that.
That fits with this story. If you imagine the would-be tacklers accusing Sayers of cheating for not running in a straight line, then you have a good fit to the Tory critics of Blair.
Posted by: pj at May 5, 2005 11:51 AMHis book I Am Third details how he places God first, others second and himself third. He accomplished great things but gave credit to others?
I'm reaching here.
How about Howard and Kerry as Brian Piccalo-like figures? They're too sick to take the job from the incumbent?
I admit it - I got nothing. I thought we had it nailed on the last Sayer's post.
Posted by: Pat H at May 5, 2005 12:20 PMI think we need to call in Dorothy Sayers to solve this one.
Posted by: jdkelly at May 5, 2005 12:35 PMRush just said it might have been a Tory sweep?????
Maybe because of the EU Referendum.
Posted by: Sandy P. at May 5, 2005 12:37 PMThey both wore/wear jock straps?
Posted by: AllenS at May 5, 2005 12:46 PMBill Cosby on Gale Sayers: "He is the man who splits himself in half and leaves the half without the football with the tackler."
Posted by: Brandon at May 5, 2005 12:47 PMGeorge Halas on Gale Sayers: "Gale detects daylight. The average back, when he sees a hole, will try to bull his way through. But Gale, if the hole is even partly clogged, instinctively takes off in the right direction. And he does it so swiftly and surely that the defense is usually frozen."
b:
Finally. Send your address & I'll send a book (theoretically)
Posted by: oj at May 5, 2005 12:50 PMIf he sends his address theoretically, will he still get anything?
Posted by: Matt Murphy at May 5, 2005 1:13 PMTheoretically.
Posted by: oj at May 5, 2005 1:20 PMwhich comment won ? Halas or Cosby?
Posted by: JonofAtlanta at May 5, 2005 1:38 PMb:
As you can see, it doesn't make a difference how you send it. You get the Dixie cups, I'll get the string.
Posted by: Matt Murphy at May 5, 2005 2:03 PMMatt;
OJ prefers engravings on stone. Once he's done reading them, he can add them to the library extension he's "working" on.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at May 5, 2005 4:50 PM