Kiwiblog

Tim Watkins at Pundit has a good analysis of the mid-terms. I agree with most of it, but want to elaborate on a few points:

Americans have voted out the party in power for three elections in a row. That’s unusual… remember, the Democrats controlled the House for 40 years not so long ago. Lots of Americans seem intent on voting for change again and again until they find what they like.

It is unusual for the House to be so volatile. The Democrats held it for 40 years from 1954 to 1994, and only lost it for four years between 1930 and 1954 also. At the Carter mid-terms the Dems lost 15 seats only. The Reagan revolution saw them lose 35 seats. The the first Reagan midterm saw the GOP lose 26. In 1984 they actually gained 16 and the second Reagan mid term saw a drop of 5 only. Bush I succeeding saw no change – a loss of two only. Bush I mid term saw a loss of only eight and when Clinton won, the Dems actually lost nine seats.

1994 was the famous revolution with 54 seats to the GOP breaking a 40 year drought. It was then very stable – changes were (for GOP) -4, -3, -2, +8, +2 until 206 when they lost 32 seats. 2008 saw a further 21 seats. And then 2010 is looking like a massive 65 seat pickup.

They won’t ever find what they like, because what many are looking for is a more secure world where America ruled the world. They want the 1950s or, at a stretch, the 1980s back. They want to be the dominant power. They want job growth in manufacturing. They want no China or Brazil or Iran or India.

Partly. But also a lot of people don’t want trillion dollar deficits.

• The junior senator for Illinois was too green for the White House and got played by those who revel in the Washington swamp.
• Hillary Clinton would have been a more successful president these past two years.

I agree with both of these points. I don’t think Obama has been a terrible President. He has though performed about as well as I would expect any President whose senior political experience was two years as a Senator (technically four years but he basically started campaigning after two). Senators have little managerial experience – their office staff of 30 or so. Governors have normally managed state governments of tens of thousands.

Obama misread his first two years. He wanted to govern from the centre, and so wasted months on healthcare trying to get bi-partisan support while he was being demonised as a socialist, death-panel-creating monster. If he wanted to start with healthcare he should have rammed it through, given the mandate he had and then tacked back to the centre. Or he should have started with something else.

The irony is that his his eventual reform was so watered down that it does little apart from making it illegal for poor people not to have health insurance. Seriously.

Having the presidency, the House and the Senate doesn’t do the dominant party much good because they cop all the blame for everything.

Yes. And this is why 2012 is far from certain. Having said that the GOP had all three wings in 2002 and got re-elected in 2004. Of course John Kerry helped.

And people will turn on the Republicans, because for all their big talk on spending cuts, the only way to really eat into the deficit is to cut something people love, such as Social Security or Medicare or bombs.

I’m not sure they are as sacred as they used to be. There is a mood for change. The deficit is unsustainable and something must go. The public may reward honesty.

The Republicans claim the American people are calling for a repeal of healthcare and cuts to government spending. That’s a misinterpretation. Spending cuts sound good until they hit your state, your town, your job.

Spending cuts can be unpopular in the short term, but having 1/4 of your tax go on interest payments is even more unpopular. And if taxes are kept low, then private sector activity can replace the government spending.

The Tea Party did OK, but not great. They’re harnessing a mood of protest, but not because even all their supporters know and believe their policies. They’re essentially libertarians and as such remain fringe.

They’re libertarians but with around 25%+ support. Until the deficit comes down, they will remain potent.

Sarah Palin cannot win the presidency.

I agree. But she will probably select the Republican candidate. She has become the endorser in chief.

The economy is likely to be better in 2012, in part because of Obama’s stimulus. He will have a better narrative and a better chance.

Ha, the same stimulus which was going to prevent unemployment from reaching 7.5%, and instead had it reach 10%.

Ex-CEOs such as Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman couldn’t win, even spending tens of millions of their own cash. Americans hate corporates even more than they hate politicians, it seems.

Actually it shows that money does not buy elections, so we do not need repressive laws to prevent people from having their voices heard.

1635: Had a meeting to attend. The Republicans are doing better in the House than expected but have not won some Senate races where they were looking competitive. Harry Reid looks to have survived in Nevada which will come as a big relief to the Dems, and may be a lesson for the Republican base about getting then balance right between electability and core voter appeal.

In the House 538 now predicts that a 54 seat pick up (equal to what they got in the 1994 revolution) is the minimum they are projecting and it could go into the 60s

1348: Democrats Joe Manchin retains West Virginia for the Democrats. This pretty much confirms the Dems will hold the Senate.

1329 Now at the Malt House with a dozen others. TVs are rotating between Fox and CNN to keep everyone happy.

At this stage it is clear that the Republicans will take the House. I think the real issue is whether or not they will beat the 54 seat pick up of 1994.

Equally clear is a takeover of the Senate will not happen, unless there is a major upset. But the long term game for the GOP is not 51 seats in 2010 but to get 60 seats by 2014. If they get to 48 seats they will be well positioned for that.

Rubio has effectively won the Florida Senate seat.

G-Man has arranged the Malthouse to host any Wellingtonians who want to watch and debate the US election results as they come in – over some food and drinks. I understand American Hot Dogs will be on the menu!

We’ll be there from midday Wednesday 3 November, and will need to make way for sports coverage around 6 pm.

This means we’ll be there from 4 pm to 10 pm PDT which covers the West Coast and from 7 pm to 1 am EDT which covers the East Coast.

So come along from midday on Wednesday to The Malt House, 48 Courtenay Place.

This video nicely shows how attack ads are nothing new. They use quotes that Jefferson and Adams used against each other in the 1800 presidential election – they are far far worse than anything said today.

1800 was the first time a sitting President lost an election, and showed how power can be transferred peacefully. It was also the first and only Vice-President to win an election against the President they served with.

For the first time, 538 are forecasting that the Republicans will pick up more than 50 seats in the mid terms next week.

That is only the mid point of their forecasts. One thing which makes them a good site is they give probabilities for different scenarios. They say there is still a 20% chance the Republicans will win fewer than 39 seats and the Democrats retain a majority.

However there is also a 30% chance the Republicans win 60 or more seats – beating the 54 seat pick-up of 1994.

15 Democrat-held seats are forecast to be at least 90% likely to go Republican, and 1 Republican-held seat to go Democrat for a net gain of 14.

A further 10 seats are forecast to be at least 80% likely to go Republican, and 1 the other way, for a cumulative net gain of 23.

At 70% you add on another another 14 seats for a cumulative gain of 37. And another 9 at over 60% for a cumulative gain of 46. So for the Democrats to keep the majority, at least seven seats deemed 60% or more likely to fall, have to be retained.

At 50% you add 8 more on to take the total to 54. That is not a 50% chance of winning 54 net seats but 54 net seats which have a 50% or greater chance of swapping hands.

If in the final week, it gets even better for the Republicans, how big could the landslide get? Those above 40% are seven seats taking it to 61, a further six above 30% to 67 and a further 9 over 20% to 76. The remaining seats are not thought to be contestable.

This is the first time 538 has forecast House as well as Senate races. It will be interested to see how well they do. I’ll take another look at their model on election eve.

When Americans for Tax Reform asked me if I would like to catch up with their President, Grover Norquist, in Sydney for half an hour to talk about US politics, I didn’t hesitate to say “hell yes”. Grover is one of the most influential and connected people on the right of politics in the US, and arguably the most powerful lobbyist in the “vast right wing conspiracy”.

We ended up actually chatting for an hour and a half, and I got some fascinating insights into how things are being positioned there. The chat was on the record, so I can blog some of the insights. I’ll try and categorise them:

US House

This is the key target for the 2010 mid terms. Not the Senate, not the Governorships but retaking the House. With that you get the Speakership and the ability to influence (downwards) spending and tax plans. Many of the House candidates have signed a no tax hikes pledge.

They need 39 seats to take the majority. Currently the number of net pick ups could be in the 50s, so it is looking relatively probable.

US Senate

The Republicans have 41 seats at the moment. There are around five seats they are highly likely to pick up, and another five that they could pick up. Gaining 51 would get the majority and control of the agenda.

However as 60 votes are needed for a cloture motion, gaining the majority is not as important as in the House.

The big challenge at the moment is that with only 41 seats, the Republicans have to hold all 41 Senators to prevent something going to the vote. That makes life very hard for the Senators in more liberal states such as Maine.

If the Republicans get to even 46 seats, that gives them a lot more flexibility to allow Senators in marginal states to vote more in line with their state’s wishes, enhancing their chances of re-election.

Now 51 would be nice to get, but that is not the real target. The target is 61 seats by 2014. Is this impossible? Not at all – look at the makeup of the seats coming up.

In 2010 around 40 seats are up for election – around 20 held by Republicans and 20 by Democrats. This means in 2012 and 2014there will be approx 30 seats up for election each time – and 20/30 will be Democrat holds and only 10/30 Republican holds.

Also remember that 2006 was the swing against Bush mid terms, when previously Republican states went Democrat. They will all be up in 2012.

So they are planning a long-term game, where they can end up not only in the majority, but with a super-majority that can force votes.

Governorships

They are looking to pick up quite a few states. Around 25 states have implemented their proposal to list basically all Government expenditure in an online searchable database. Several candidates who are leading in the polls have pledged to do this also, so eventually they hope it will cover almost all states and then the federal government.

I’d like to see such a policy back home – for central and local government. Have all payments over say $1,000 listed on the Internet and let a nation of armchair auditors get to work scrutinizing what their taxes are spent on.

Sarah Palin

Grover shares my view that she will probably not stand for President in 2012. She is making more money and doing very well in her current role as a commentator and power figure.

We talked about whether she has become a de facto leader of the Tea Party. The best way to describe it is that she is not a leader in an organizational sense but she is the endorser-in-chief. If she endorses a candidate in a race, then it focuses massive attention and potential energy and activists on that candidate.  Now it doesn’t mean they automatically go on to win their primary – some of her endorsements have lost. What it comes down to is whether the endorsed candidate is ready and capable of using her endorsement to gain activists and supporters.

The Tea Party

This is still very much a grassroots movement. There is no national hierarchy or structure. In fact Norquist said it is better to think of it as a brand – such as Reagan Republicans or Goldwater Conservatives. What they represent is in fact the fifth wave of “entrants” into the Republican party – others were the Goldwater conseratives, the Pat Robertson religious right etc etc. These are the fiscal conservatives.

Also worth noting that many Tea Party people are not registered republicans, but independents.

So thinking of the Tea Party as a symbol of identification or brand, rather than a formal party or organisation is a good thing to remember.

We talked about the tension between whether one should go for the more moderate electable candidates, or the more “fiscally pure” candidates who may end up not winning the seat in the general election.

ATR do their own endorsements and they do not always match those of the “tea party”. In several seats unreliable incumbents have lost to challengers, and the challenger is looking likely to win the seat in November. So that has been very successful. Delaware stands out as the obvious example where the Republicans are now very unlikely to win the race, after Mike Castle was defeated for the nomination.

Norquist said that Castle lost because he was unwilling to modify any of his positions, to reassure activists he was worth electing. If he had been willing to do that, he would have won easily. He compares it to McCain. McCain beat off a challenger because he moved more towards the Republican base on issues such as cap and trade.

2012

The challenge for the Republicans is that a generic Republican candidate would beat Obama according to the polls, but once you start naming names Obama leads. Norquist says though that the primary campaign season can and will change this, as candidates become more nationally known.

Romney is the front runner for now. As I said previously Palin not expected to run. Huckabee may stand again also.

Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota is a solid contender. He was McCain’s choice for VP before they went for Palin. Texas Governor Rick Perry has solid conservative backing also.

Newt Gingrich would like to be President and would like to run, but may struggle for some support as having led the Republican to victory in 1994, he failed to reduce government spending much. Grover made the point that it is useful to Newt’s broadcasting career to remain a presidential contender, and he won’t pull out early if he does.

Bobby Jindal of Louisiana is very popular and would be very acceptable. He is young so his time may be in the future but Norquist says having him on the ticket as Vice-President would be a smart move.

Haley Barbour of Mississipi is another “acceptable” candidate. He is a former RNC Chair and lobbyist, so may struggle for public appeal outside his state. Norquist said that he would be an ideal Chief of Staff to the President, which is an interesting possibility. Barbour, incidentally, is good mates with former National Party President John Slater, through their shared involvement with the IDU. So we might have a useful link to the White House of Barbour ended up in that role.

Another potential contender is Meg Whitman, if she wins the California Governorship. If you start with 10% of the electoral vote in your rocket, you have to be a contender.

Chris Christie is another possibility. A very popular Governor.

A Whitman/Jindal ticket could be very electorally popular. Far too early to speculate really, but it could happen.

Talking US politics,  Obama has just had Chief of Staff resign, to stand for Mayor of Chicago. I’m not sure many people would go from running the US Government to running Chicago, but I guess the perks are better in Chicago

18 months into the first terms, the presidential approval ratings for various Presidents was:

1. Eisenhower 75%
2. Bush GWH 74%
3. JFK 67%
4. LBJ 65%
5. Bush GW 65%
6. Nixon 55%
7. Ford 48%
8. Carter 43%
9. Clinton 43%
10. Reagan 41%
11. Obama 41%
12. Truman 34%

Reagan, Clinton and Truman all went on to win another term, so maybe Obama is following their strategy of not peaking too early!

The impact of the Tea Party movement on US politics is proving both good and bad to the US right.

The movement is fascinating because it really is what so many people in politics have called for – a grass roots movement that is not controlled by the establishment, that has no leaders – just a set of shared values. Now there are downsides to having no structure and no leaders (extremists etc), but the positive is several million Americans have joined this movement and are far far more enthusiastic at participating in it than they are with mainstream politics.

There is no doubt that the momentum generated by the Tea Party movement is part of the reason that the Democrats face losing the House, the majority of Governorships and possibly even the Senate. They are not the only factor, but they have generated a degree of hostility towards “Big Government”, that many incumbents are facing oblivion.

And not just Democrat incumbents. They have got bolder and bolder in challenging incumbent Republicans. They have won many victories in primaries. However this makes the job of winning the general election much harder. Harry Reid was 10% behind in Nevada against the mainstream Republican candidate but is now neck and neck vs teh Tea Party backed candidate.

And in Delaware, Christine O’Donnell just won the primary against Mike Castle who has held office within Deleware for around 40 years and was rated highly likely to beat the Democrats in the general election.

O’Donnell has been disowned by everyone from Karl Rove down. She has advocated against masturbation (equating it with adultery), has a history of bad debts.

But having said that, she may manage to win in the general election. Other tea party backed candidates have shown they can be competitive against the Democrats.

In Florida, the general consensus when Rubio beat Crist for the Republican nomination is that it would fall to the Democrats. 538 currently has Rubio on 40%, Crist (as an Independent) on 38% and the Democrats’ Meek out of it on 22%.

So it is possible that the Republicans will still win the Senate. The Tea Party backed candidates may win in the general election.But O’Donnell may end up as a ticking time bomb – exploding either before or after the election.

The Herald reports:

A senior member of the Obama Administration has praised the Prime Minister as a “key player” on the international stage, who has developed a “real chemistry” with the US President. …

Speaking at a seminar on United States-New Zealand relations in Washington, Dr Campbell said Mr Key had “animated the discussions” and “drove the deliberations” at the President’s Nuclear Summit in April.

Labour, and many in the wider left, have been underestimating John Key for years and years, and still do so. This is partly why they lost the 2008 election – they were convinced Clark would destroy Key in the debates.

Even today they have their fantasies that he is some sort of smile and wave lightweight, whose only asset is his smile. And you compare that to Campbell’s assessment that Key drove deliberations at the US convened nuclear summit.

Dr Campbell said the Obama Administration had at first considered the US-NZ relationship was “profoundly underperforming”.

The change of regime in both counties has probably helped

There is a growing consensus that the Dems will lose the House. US News reports:

Typically cautious Larry Sabato, head of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, is rocking the political world with a new “Crystal Ball” prediction: The GOP will win the House, making Ohio’s John Boehner speaker, might get a 50-50 split in the Senate, and will pick up some eight new governors.

A recent Gallup poll had the Republicans 10% ahead on the generic ballot – their largest lead in over 70 years.

What maybe more exciting is the Senate. The Republicans have 41 seats. They need to win a massive 10 seats to gain control. There are 37 seats up for election, 19 held by Democrats and 18 by Republicans.

So the Republicans would have to win over half of the Democratic held seats, and not lose any of their own. Normally an impossible task.

But it is now only improbably, not impossible. 538 calculates that the Republicans will pick up seven seats with a greater than 50% probability – North Dakota, Arkansas, Indiana, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Colorado and Nevada.

There are four other seats where they are deemed to have a 30% or grater chance, and only trail by 3% or less. They are Illinois, Washington, California and Wisconsin. They only need three of those four to gain control.

You know things are bad for the Democrats when Illinois and California are marginal!

The Illinois seat, is Obama’s old one.

The elections are on 2 November 2010 – just over eight weeks away.

War is a Crime blogs a transcript of how Bush and Cheney pulled off 9/11, as alleged by the “911 truthers”:

Cheney: No, we bomb the World Trade Center and blame it on Osama bin Laden.

Feith: Oh. How?

Cheney: Easy. First, we cultivate 19 suicidal Muslim patsies from a variety of Middle Eastern countries, I’d say mostly from Saudi Arabia. We bring them to the U.S., train them at U.S. flight schools. They should be high-profile terrorist suspects who are magically given free reign by the security agencies to travel back and forth to various terrorist training camps to study passenger jet piloting. Actually that process is already underway now. Our friends in the Clinton administration are seeing to it that four groups of Arab men are being brought along by the FBI and the CIA.

Wolfowitz: How is it that the Clinton administration is already helping us with this, when we haven’t even planned this yet?

Cheney: They just are. Okay?

Wolfowitz: Okay, fine. And what do we do with these hijackers?

Cheney: We sit idly by while they plot to hijack a series of passenger jet planes and crash them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the White House.

Wolfowitz: And how do we get them to do that?

Cheney: We just do. You see, we worked with these people back in the old mujahadeen days in Afghanistan. So naturally we’re still thick as thieves with them.

Feith: Oh, of course. So we get them to fly into these buildings. And the impact from the planes will bring down the World Trade Center.

Cheney: No, Doug, dammit, you’re not following me. The impact from the planes most certainly won’t be sufficient to knock down the Towers. We know this because we’ve privately conducted studies which show that the Towers will easily be able to withstand impact by two jets loaded to the gills with jet fuel. That said, the jets will likely cause skyscraper fires hot enough to kill everyone above the point of impact; we’re going to have to assume, of course, that the exits from the higher floors to the lower floors will be mostly blocked after the collisions. So assuming we crash the planes about two-thirds of the way up each of the towers early on a business day, we’re looking at trapping and killing a good three, four, maybe even five thousand people on the upper floors.

Feith: Fantastic. I love killing people in the finance industry. It’s too bad the people on the lower floors will get to escape.

Cheney: It is too bad — especially since we’re going to blow up the rest of the building complex anyway.

Feith: We are?

Cheney: Yes. You see, the way I see it, our best course of action is to first crash planes into each the towers, trapping and killing those thousands on the upper floors of each building. After the impact, of course, the people on the lower floors will find their way out of the building and on to the street, where they will achieve relative safety — at which point we’ll finally detonate the massive network of explosive charges we’ve secretly hidden in the buildings in the weeks and months prior to the attacks.

As hilarious as these are – the sad thing is tens of thousands of people actually believe this is what happened.

Feith: So why don’t we detonate the charges earlier, so that we can kill the people on the lower floors, too?

Cheney: That’s a good question. At some point we have to sacrifice effect for believability. You see, if the planes crash into the buildings and the buildings immediately collapse, everyone will be suspicious and they’ll immediately be onto the presence of the explosives. So what we have to do is let the planes crash into the building, give the jet fuel time to start fires that will “soften” the building core, and then we detonate the charges. Afterwards, we’ll be able to argue that the fires coupled with the impact actually caused the buildings to collapse.

Feith: Why will we be able to argue that? Didn’t our studies show that impact and fire alone wouldn’t have caused the buildings to collapse?

Cheney: Those were our secret, far-more-advanced studies, done with secret, far-more-advanced military technology. The vast majority of the world’s civilian structural engineers, however, can be counted on after the incident to conclude that the buildings collapsed due to a combination of fire, impact, and the knocking off of fireproofing from the building beams.

Feith: Why can they be counted on to conclude that?

Cheney: Because that’s what our secret research shows their not-secret research will show! Jesus Christ, work with me on this, will you?

I love Cheney’s lines.

Wolfowitz: I think I get it. We crash the planes, kill everyone above the impact of the planes, let the people underneath the impact out to safety, then collapse the buildings about an hour or so later using the explosives that we pointlessly incurred months and weeks worth of career- and life-threatening risk to covertly plant in a building complex visited by hundreds of thousands of people every week.

Cheney: Exactly! The actual deaths will mostly be caused by the planes. But we’ll incur the massive additional risk simply to destroy the building, for effect, because it will look cool and scary on television.

Again, this is what some people believe.

The WSJ reports:

This just in: San Francisco federal judge Vaughn Walker has shot down California’s Proposition 8, the initiative passed by voters in 2008 that banned same-sex marriage.

Judge Walker said Proposition 8 violated the federal constitutional rights of gays and lesbians to marry the partners of their choice. Click here for the opinion.

“Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment,” the judge wrote. “Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.”

Walker’s ruling is expected to be appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

If I lived in California I would have voted against Proposition 8. I have no problems with same sex marriage.

But I do not like judges deciding that there is a constitutional right for same sex marriage, and over-riding the will of the people.

I do not think the intent of the the drafters of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights could possibly have been to force same-sex marriage onto a state, despite its rejection by popular decision.

Eventually the US Supreme Court will decide the case on the legal issues. I am more interested in the political.

I think having Judges “decide” something is a right is generally counter-productive. Roe v Wade is a fine example. Why so many hate that decision, is because a group of Judges decided abortion policy for the entire United States. If Roe v Wade had never been decided that way, I beleive most states would not have reasonable abortion laws, without anywhere near the controversy that surrounds them.

Justice Scalia has made the point that there is almost no controversy over women having got the vote, because it was done the proper way – through elected representatives changing the law. If the US Supreme Court had just one day declared women have the vote, then the decision would have far less “ownership” from the public.

I’m not against an entrenched bill of rights, where laws that conflict with it can be struck down. I am against what is generally called judicial activism where issues that should be decided through the political process, are decided overwhelmingly by the judicial process.

Interestingly the Judge who made the ruling is gay, but was a Reagan appointee and is regarded as conservative or tending libertarian.

Tracy Watkins reports:

The United States is signalling a deeper relationship with New Zealand, including a step-up in military training and exercises between the two countries.

Is that a primal scream I hear from Keith Locke?

“When [US] President [Barack] Obama came to power with Secretary [of State Hillary] Clinton together [they] took a number of bilateral reviews and one of those at the top of the list was New Zealand … I think there is a recognition that this is a relationship that was underperforming.”

What had come through “resoundingly” in the review was that it was “profoundly in American interests to take the relationship with New Zealand to the next level, maybe the next two levels.”

So if we were very very very very good friends, does this mean we are now very, very, very, very, very very good friends?

But a widely anticipated White House visit by Prime Minister John Key now looks unlikely till next year.

Campbell said Key had been a “big hit” in Washington at the Nuclear Security Summit this year but he was unable to give a commitment about any meeting between him and President Barack Obama in Washington.

They’re called mid-terms. Obama will be busy until they are out of the way.

AP reports:

New estimates from the White House on Friday predict the budget deficit will reach a record $1.47 trillion this year. The government is borrowing 41 cents of every dollar it spends.

That’s just madness. People are focused on Europe crashing, but I am equally focused on the US crashing again.

Thanks God the situation in NZ is not this dire. Remember the US situation when certain politicians call for more spending.

This is George Rekers. He a leading US anti-gay activist who is one of the founders of the Family Research Council and a director of NARTH – the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality, which teaches men how not to be attracted to men. He has testified in court that the Bible is the infallible word of God and that homosexuality is a sin.

This is Lucien. He is a male prostitute, or a rent boy, and as you can see is available on rentboy.com. Lucien is 20 and claims to ave an eight inch uncut cock. I am no expert on these things, but understand most rent boys claim this size. Anyway back to the main story.

The Miami New Times reports that Mr Rekers and Lucien have just returned from a 10 day vacation in Europe. They were photographed arriving back in Miami together.

Now I know you are all assuming the worst, but there is an innocent explanation for all this. No Mr Rekers is not a hypocrite of the highest order. He did not spend ten days sinning with Lucien. He had a perfectly good explanation for their holiday together.

Rekers recently had back surgery and needed someone to help him with lifting his luggage!!!

I think there is a Tui billboard looking for a home.

Gwynne Dyer writes:

But suppose I went to Mexico as a tourist and then stayed there illegally, taking work that might otherwise have gone to some deserving Mexican citizen. I would not be treated more gently by the Mexican authorities.

Why does Mexico believe that its own citizens who are illegally in the United States deserve better treatment?

Generally speaking an illegal immigrant has few rights – they are in a country in defiance of that country’s law. It annoys me that many stories do not distinguish between immigrants and illegal immigrants. There is a world of difference.

Each year the number of permanently resident illegal immigrants grows. Even in Arizona, where there is not a huge demand for agricultural labour, there are now an estimated 460,000 illegal Mexican immigrants, about 7 per cent of Arizona’s total population.

Some argue that they are doing jobs nobody else wants, but that is only a possible reason for letting them stay. It certainly does not give them the right to stay.

There is certainly no right to say.

Having said that don’t think trying to evict every illegal immigrant in the US is productive or practical. I would support an amnesty for illegal immigrants who have work to come forward and become legal immigrants. This should be a one off opportunity. The reality is many immigrants are providing valuable labour and goods and services.

Following the amnesty, then there should be a serious effort at minimising future illegal immigration, and detecting and deporting quickly illegal immigrants

Arizona is calling time on that system, and intends to seek out and send home people who are in the state illegally.

In most parts of the world, that would not be regarded as unreasonable. What is different in Arizona’s case?

The implicit charge is racism. The assumption is that American citizens of Mexican origin, and legitimate Mexican visitors, will also be stopped and asked to prove they are legally in the United States – and that they will be chosen for questioning on the grounds they simply look “Mexican”.

That is a legitimate concern.

Simply enforce the same rules that apply in airport security queues to ensure that nobody feels they are being “profiled” because of their ethnicity.

In the airports, they make sure that heavily bearded young men who look “Middle Eastern” face no greater risk of being selected for special examination than paraplegic grandmothers.

I’ve never been convinced this is a particularly sensible policy. And yes I know that is contradictory a bit to the above, but I regard your right to board a plane without facing a couple of questions as far less a right than walking down your local street without harassment.

The Arizona police should be instructed to stop 13 white, black and Asian people and check that they are legally in the state for every person they stop who looks “Mexican”.

Then nobody will have anything to complain about.

That might well be what they do. Of course I suspect it will be fairly ineffective and we will just see a lot of illegal immigrants shift to other states.

US Ambassador David Huebner has a blog, and I am finding it a good read.

In is latest post he talks about Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson:

Franklin was a Renaissance man who could not be pigeon-holed.  He was an author, editor, business man, inventor, soldier, satirist, philosopher, statesman, politician, post master, and diplomat.  He developed the concepts of the modern fire station, ambulance service, and public lending library.  He served as America’s first ambassador, and was effective in securing the alliance with France that helped insure the success of our Revolution.

And Jefferson:

Likewise, Jefferson was a brilliant man who made his mark in many different fields – as a farmer, architect, inventor, educator, philosopher, archaeologist, diplomat, and statesman. Jefferson served as America’s first Secretary of State (under George Washington) and as President for two terms. Jefferson was a fierce advocate of the rights of individual citizens and the individual States, and his struggle against Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists over the development of a strong central government still resonates through America today. Jefferson is consistently rated by scholars as among the very greatest of American Presidents.

When President John F. Kennedy hosted dinner for a group of four dozen Nobel Prize winners, he famously commented, “I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House – with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.” (White House Diaries.)

That is one of my favourite quotes.

The class and I spent much of our time reading through the Declaration and discussing the meaning, power, and novelty (at least back then) of its various clauses.  We talked about the courage it took – and still takes in various places around the world – to risk being imprisoned and killed for simply speaking your mind and seeking freedom.  We spent a good bit of time discussing what it means to say that governments “derive their just powers from the consent of the governed,” or to say that it is the absolute right of the people “to alter or to abolish” governments that become “destructive” of the interests and rights of the people.

The Declaration of Independence is Jefferson’s masterpiece. How it survived a committee so well, is a miracle.

We also examined the structure, history, and current application of the U.S. Constitution – the oldest and shortest written constitution in use on Earth.

I knew it was the oldest on Earth, but not that it is the shortest. It is worth remembering that the US was unique in having a written constitution and no monarchy – a form of Government that is today the most common we have.

An e-mail from the US Democratic Leadership Council highlights that 25 years ago Israel and the US signed a free trade agreement.

The change in aid and trade in that time has been massive

1. Aid has reduced from $3.7b to $2.3b
2. Services trade has gone from $1.0b to $7.5b
3. Goods trade has gone from $2.4b to $44.2b

The US used to supply more in aid, than trade to Israel. Now their trade is more than 20 times greater than their aid.

Europe and the US should drop their trade barriers so that we have more trade, and less need for aid.

The Herald focuses on media freedom in Fiji:

Two developments in Suva provide renewed evidence of the regime’s distaste for democracy in any real meaning of the word. They must surely have dismissed any thoughts among transtasman officials and politicians of achieving change by appeasement.

This is the unfortunate thing, with the timing. I think NZ, and Australia, were edging towards a more constructive relationship. But this draft decreee pushes them in the other direction.

First, Fiji’s just-published draft of a Media Industry Development Decree would virtually eliminate freedom of expression in the country. It is a remarkable document, one which would make Zimbabwe proud and Singapore blush.

I am one of those who believe taking away a voice is worse than taking away a vote.

The decree protecting the regime from prosecution is a more abstract threat to democracy – a coup leader’s fantasy that surely, once this sorry interregnum is over, will be declared null and void by a legitimate court – with the case against him then reported by a free press. That time can come, though, only if New Zealand and Australia continue to hold hard to democratic principle and the regime is subjected to the greatest sanction, the decision of the Fijian people to call time on their dictator.

This is why I don’t think the Commodore will even surrender power. He has no exit plan which guarantees him immunity from prosecution.

The Dom Post looks at trade with the US:

The US has much to gain from improved access to Asian markets for its goods but it is an unsentimental dealmaker, which swaps its free trade principles for self-interest when it sits down at the negotiating table.

The new ambassador to Washington, Mike Moore, has work to do. So does Mr Key, who is hoping for a formal invitation to the White House later this year and the heft that will give him with US business and farming organisations.

And the ODT talks apples:

The Australian apple market is not huge and estimates for New Zealand exports range around $15 million to $20 million per annum, small but significant.

On the other hand Australian apple consumption is much lower than New Zealand’s and better prices and more competition could be what is needed to stimulate demand.

It can be a win-win,

Australia is in this instance, however, a blatant hypocrite.

It battles for free trade in agriculture while putting up several specific agricultural barriers to protect its own, including against New Zealand apples.

Yes, and if they refuse to act on this issue, will risk undermining their credibility as the WTO can then approve trade sanctions against them.

Fans of libertarian Ron Paul have got very excited by this Rasmussen poll:

Pit maverick Republican Congressman Ron Paul against President Obama in a hypothetical 2012 election match-up, and the race is – virtually dead even.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of likely voters finds Obama with 42% support and Paul with 41% of the vote. Eleven percent (11%) prefer some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided.

Could a 77 year old libertarian from Texas really beat Obama?

Five Thirty Eight puts it into context:

But as regular readers of this website will know, the person conducting the poll can have a profound impact on its results. Rasmussen, in particular, has had a substantial Republican-leaning house effect thus far this year. Perhaps they will turn out to be right (although their idea of trying to apply a “likely voter” model 2.5 years in advance of an election is dubious). But it would be wrong to take a Rasmussen poll (or any other) at face value without taking into account this context. …

After adjustment for house effects, Obama’s lead over Paul is not 1 point but more like 10. This result is closer to that obtained by a PPP poll in November, which had Obama ahead 46-38 against Paul (PPP’s 2012 polls have also had a very slight Republican-leaning house effect.)

Paul’s 9.9-point deficit is not awful — it’s better than of Newt Gingrich (-12.2), Jeb Bush (-13.4) or Sarah Palin (-14.4) do — but lags behind the performance of Mitt Romney, who is just 5.6 points behind, or Mike Huckabee, who is down 6.6. It also lags behind the performance of a so-called generic Republican, who is actually slightly ahead of Obama.

This is what is interesting. A generic Republican candidate beats Obama by 1.9%. But the moment you name a specific candidate, Obama leads by 5% or more. At this stage I think Obama will be re-elected – due to the lack of electable Republican candidates. But if they do find someone without serous baggage, then it is definitely game on.

Back to the Rasmussen poll, the Tea Party movement gets stronger:

Twenty-four percent (24%) of voters now consider themselves a part of the Tea Party movement, an eight-point increase from a month ago. Another 10% say they are not a part of the movement but have close friends or family members who are.

The TP movement was derided or ignored for months, but it has become the most powerful grass roots movement in recent times. It dwarves liberal counterparts such as Move On.

When it comes to major issues confronting the nation, 48% of voters now say the average Tea Party member is closer to their views than Obama is. Forty-four percent (44%) hold the opposite view and believe the president’s views are closer to their own.

Again, there may be some house bias, but that is still a powerful result.

It is very rare to have an Ambassador comment on a domestic policy, and even more rare amongst friendly countries. So I was surprised and pleased to see the US Ambassador to Australia speak out against the Government’s planned compulsory filter:

CHILD pornographers can be captured and prosecuted without having to resort to mandatory internet filters, says Barack Obama confidante and US Ambassador to Australia Jeff Bleich.

Speaking on ABC TV’s Q&A program last night, Mr Bleich said Australia had been made aware of his own government’s no internet censorship stance and that the US has had “healthy discussions” with its Australian counterparts on the matter.

“On the issue of the internet we have been very clear. The internet needs to be free,” Mr Bleich said.

“It needs to be free the way we have said skies have to be free, outer space has to be free, the polar caps have to be free, the oceans have to be free. They’re shared resources of all the people in the world.”

The US had told Australia child pornographers could be nabbed without the use of internet filters, Mr Bleich said.

“What we’ve said is we have been able to accomplish the goals that Australia has described, which is to capture and prosecute child pornographers and others who use the internet for terrible purposes, without having to use internet filters,” he said.

I like the quote about how the Internet is a shared resource of all the people in the world.

The Herald reports:

Prime Minister John Key says he was invited to the United States nuclear security summit in Washington because President Barack Obama recognised the importance of New Zealand’s anti-nuclear position.

Irony No 1 is that after 25 years of the anti-nuclear law keeping NZ on the outer in Washington, it is now being seen by the US President as a positive.

Irony No 2 is that the beneficiary of Irony No 1 is not the party that introduced the law, but the party that has spent most of the last 25 years trying to work out ways to amend it.

Politics is full of ironies.

From the US:

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s take-no-prisoners demand for education cuts got him a whole lot more than he bargained for — a death wish.

It was in a controversial e-mail sent by the Bergen County Teachers Union to its members asking that Christie be “taken” by the Lord.

In seven years as the Garden State’s pugnacious U.S. Attorney, Christie got only two death threats — from the bloods and the crips.

It took only three months as governor for an adversary to wish him six feet under.

This makes the NZEI look moderate by comparison!

Now to be fair to the Bergen Union, the reference they made was in the form of a joke, rather than a serious death wish:

The e-mail in question was sent by Bergen County Education Association president Joseph Coppola in the form of a prayer, which said:

“Dear lord,’ this year you have taken away my favorite actor, Patrick Swayze, my favorite actress, Farrah Fawcett, my favorite singer, Michael Jackson, and my favorite salesman, Billy Mays. I just wanted to let you know that Chris Christie is my favorite governor.”

Now I actually think it is a pretty funny joke, and can relate to it. But I almost never get offended by humour.

However humour is about audience. A joke like that is fine told verbally between mates, or even on a jokes website or a blog.

Deciding to put it in a union newsletter, when you are involved in a bitter dispute with the butt of the joke, is stupid. It turns the humour into perceived malice.

Tracy Watkins at the Dom Post reports:

A driving force behind New Zealand’s nuclear-free legislation, Sir Geoffrey Palmer, says it is time for United States Navy ships to return to our waters.

As Prime Minister John Key heads to Washington for a summit which seeks to rid the world of nuclear weapons, Sir Geoffrey said ship visits would not breach New Zealand’s anti-nuclear laws. The return of the US Navy was not only possible “but desirable”.

Now that NZ ships have visted the US for the first time in 25 years, a return visit makes sense.

There are very few US ships that would be unable to visit, under our legislation.

Some aircraft carriers are nuclear powered, but generally they would not visit anyway – we are too far out of the way, and they are too big for some of our ports to handle. A pity, in a way, as I’d love to tour one.

The other are some of the US submarine fleet. But many of the subs don’t do port visits anyway as their job is to sit at the bottom of the ocean, with some missiles pointed towards North Korea.

So I’m all for a visit by a US ship, just as Canadian, Australian, British and Japanense ships visit here also.

This Gallup poll on party favourability has the Democrats at a all time low in for the 17 years they have been polling this question.

The biggest change has been amongst Independent voters. Their favourability rating has dropped from 47% in July to 30% today.

Mid terms are getting closer.