texascity Posted November 19, 2006 Report Share Posted November 19, 2006 IMHO .. he is much to sophisticated for America + I've never seen him reference GOD Nanci Pelosi (I'd do her!) spoke of church last week Hillary & McCain are careful to associate themselves with godly references. American Patriotism is more based in godliness that selfless service. True patriot war heroes like Kerry & McCain & Max Clelland are often held in disdain & called cowards. Tony didn't serve, did he? & the Bush / Rove attire is based on 'market survey' .. the ever so dapper jack Straw (?) really turned me off. Tony is definitely a better speaker than ANY american Tony handles himself so well in the house of commons .. I'd lub to see the bush boy in such a situation. the average american, to the right of me, would not know what to do with Tony's level of sophistication. except for his poodle act & the dodgy dossier fact I'd vote for Tony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckwoww Posted November 19, 2006 Report Share Posted November 19, 2006 Would he run as a Democrat or a Republican? His New Labour party is a pretty successful attempt to please everybody. Are Americans ready for Hegelian dialectic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texascity Posted November 19, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 19, 2006 wow-ster he seems pretty hawkish. must say I do not know enough about Brit politics labour indicates (to me) pro working man .. is Tony pro globalization? He seems to have a social conscience. I do like that 100% KRAZY guy .. Sir Galloway, a Sean Connery like speaker .. I'd definitely vote for him .. he seems pretty honest he spoke to the US Congress / Senate(?) & blasted some neocon ass'oles would Bush's 'cockney' fly on the Isles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dean Posted November 19, 2006 Report Share Posted November 19, 2006 If Arnold can be elected gov. of California (I love the way he pronounces it), Blair could be elected, but probably not President, because of his support of enviromental issues and his interest in helping third world nations, particularly Africa. Both topics rank below radar with most Americans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckwoww Posted November 19, 2006 Report Share Posted November 19, 2006 Tony is no 'cockney'. He was actually born in Scotland and speaks with a Home Counties accent. I'd like to hear Bush do any kind of British accent. As to whether Blair is left or right that's hard to say. Mrs. T shut the unions down and Tony stepped into the vacuum. There is not much left of the old Labour movement in the UK. Everybody is middle class now except lazyphil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted November 19, 2006 Report Share Posted November 19, 2006 Us Americans are so 'daft' as the Brits say he'll get elected based on his accent alone. We (the collective we, I like my east coast accent best..hehe) go goo-goo over English accents. Blair spoke to both houses of Congress a couple years ago. Said the same thing about the war in Iraq has Bush did but with an 'educated, english accent' (at least to us here) and everyone said 'keep Blair, send Bush back'. Why? The accent. He'd be a Democrat. A centrist Democrat. Labour (or Labor here ; )party is akin to Dems and the Tories are more akin to Republicans in how both parties are viewed in their respective nations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian2 Posted November 20, 2006 Report Share Posted November 20, 2006 I'm glad you and Tony understand Hegelian dialectic Chuck because I'm fucked if I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckwoww Posted November 20, 2006 Report Share Posted November 20, 2006 It's a state wherein a perfect synthesis gives rise to no antithesis. In political terms it means the population becomes conditioned to accept domination by the ruling elite. The ruling elite creates the problems and then solves them. Ultimately nobody has to think anymore. Of course it's all theory. In reality something always happens to fuck it up. Things like hubris and karma seem much more reliable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sayjann Posted November 20, 2006 Report Share Posted November 20, 2006 but would any of you colonial cousins want Blair as your Leader?. would he be worse than Georgie Boy............? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Moth Posted November 20, 2006 Report Share Posted November 20, 2006 Many years ago now, Blair was so impressed with Bill Clinton that he came to the US to be tutored by Bill's staff on how to position himself. Clinton, a Rhodes scholar, is a brillant man without any moral compass. If it benefits Clinton that is all that matters. Blair seems cut in the same mold. But, to be elected in the US, he would have to stop using complex sentences, bring his vocabulary down to the level of a 10 year old and adopt some of Clinton's home boy demeanor. Personally, I think, being in the Clinton mold, he could accomplish this and be elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.