Today's Financial Times highlights the huge increase in the importance of fundraising for next year's Presidential election. The article notes the recent head of the Federal Election Commission's prediction that "the final two nominees will probably spend $1bn between them - we are going to have America's first billion-dollar president." The FT's Edward Luce writes:
"Candidates from both parties together raised more than $150m (£76m,
€112m) in the first quarter of 2007, six times as much as the
equivalent period in 2003 and eight times as high as 1999. By the end of
this year - more than 10 months before polling day - the leading
candidates will have raised at least $100m apiece."
The article then identifies some of the reasons why fundraising has exploded:
The race for the White House is the most open since 1952 - the last time no sitting President or Vice President was in the running. This has increased the number of candidates.
All campaigns are also beginning earlier than normal. This partly reflects the rise of the new media. Peggy Noonan has written about the old media's determination not be to be outdone by the new media's coverage of politics. The political blogosphere (with nothing else more interesting to write about) started blogging the 2008 race and the mainstream media has played catch up.
Reason three is the new timetable for primaries. Some of America's biggest states - Texas, California, New York and Illinois - have timetabled their primaries for 5th February. This telescoping of the process means there'll be less retail politics: "Since candidates will be unable to lavish the same kind of intimate
attention on so many large states as they do on voters in the early
primary states of New Hampshire, South Carolina and Iowa, they will
have no choice but to reach voters through broadcast media - a much
costlier option."
By joining our mailing list you will receive occasional emails about major stories on BritainAndAmerica. The mailing list is administered by BraveNet to high industry standards and every email we send you will contain an 'unsubscribe' option so that you can leave our list at any time you choose.
By Tim Montgomerie, Editor of BritainAndAmerica.com.
Paul Wolfowitz gave what I think was his first interview this morning since giving up his battle to stay World Bank President. He chose to give it to the BBC World Service. Mr Wolfowitz, like an increasing number of American politicians, understands the importance of the BBC within the global media marketplace. Far fewer understand the increasing importance of the British media to the USA's own domestic political debates.
In this morning's Guardian - arguably Britain's most influential newspaper because of its penetration of what Australians call The Opinionators - there is an important article exploring the growing US readership of London-sourced news. It highlights BBC news online (with five million Americans visiting every month), The Guardian (4.5 million) and The Times (3.3 million). The graphic on the right compares that data with October 2006 data for some major US media platforms (data originating from comScore).
The Guardian's Susan Hansen argues that Americans are partly turning to online British newspapers because of their more feisty scrutiny of politicians - particularly the much greater scepticism about Iraq that was evident from the BBC, Guardian and Independent during the run-up to the decision to go to war. She also notes the efforts of British newspapers to tailor more and more products to the US marketplace. "The Guardian," she writes, "has been beefing up its reporting staff in a bid to drive still more Americans to its site."
'The American rise' of the BBC, The Guardian and The Independent should worry US conservatives. Although the BBC is supposed to be impartial it leans towards a left-liberal worldview. It favours multilateral institutions like the United Nations, for example. It is consistently criticised for its tendency to favour anti-Israel viewpoints. A recent book by Robin Aitken - a BBC journalist for 25 years - documents the extent to which the BBC favours state intervention in the economy and is suspicious of Christian conservatism. Joseph Loconte's week with the BBC series on this site has also documented the Corporation's many biases. The Guardian and The Independent are not inhibited by any charter responsibilities to impartiality. Their bias is not just institutional but also overt.
There are some media platforms where there is less anti-Americanism and fairer coverage of Republicans. The Murdoch-owned Times, for example, and The Telegraph. The Economist (with its readership of 600,000) and the Financial Times are also more balanced but both endorsed John Kerry at the last presidential election.
In recent years Fox News, talk radio and the blogosphere have given US conservatives the tools to fight mainstream media bias. 'The British invasion' may be giving new power to the left although Gerard Baker, US Editor of The Times, told BritainAndAmerica that most American conservatives won't be fooled by the BBC:
"It seems to be popular with left-liberals who, one assumes, share its general worldview. I doubt its steady diet of anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-religion, anti-capitalism coverage goes down all that well in the heartland, however."
My guess is that the BBC will influence more moderate, independently-minded voters, however. The internet audience figures also understate the BBC's impact. There is BBC America television and the Corporation supplies a lot of foreign coverage to ABC News and general news to many local radio stations. The World Service also has a significant reach. Talking to BBC journalists on recent trips to Washington I found them disappointed at the lack of interaction they receive with the White House and the Republican Party. I have mentioned this repeatedly to White House staffers since 2002 but nothing seems to change. In a close election it could be British media coverage that wins the election for the Democrats.
As BritainAndAmerica goes forward one of our key themes will be monitoring BBC coverage of US politics.
Tom Porteous, London Director of Human Rights Watch, kicked off the session with his general thoughts on the United Nations as it stands. He cautioned that the US and UK’s moral authority had been tarnished by their own human rights abuses, as had that of the Human Rights Commission and now the Council for having members who fall way short of having the highest standards in human rights domestically.
Tom’s main concern was for the Council to have teeth by the UN beginning to "operationalise the responsibility to protect". This would be easier if the office of High Commissioner of Human Rights scanned the horizon more and the Secretary General spoke out on the RTP agenda. He highlighted the chasm between rhetoric and reality, between pledges made by member states and their own records. The Council seemed to be an improvement on the Commission but the way that regions offered the same number of candidate countries as there were places, meant that unfortunately countries like Egypt in the Africa region went through without any difficulty. The saving grace for this system was that Belarus was blocked from membership (but only because Bosnia was persuaded to stand alongside Slovenia). This served as a useful deterrent to nations with dubious records applying in future, he said.
Joseph Loconte, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and commentator for National Public Radio, is the editor of The End of Illusions: Religious Leaders Confront Hitler’s Gathering Storm.
In what surely ranks as one of the most aggressive advocacy campaigns in its history, the BBC is pulling every diplomatic lever possible to secure the release of journalist Alan Johnston, kidnapped by Palestinian terrorists in Gaza over 10 weeks ago. Appeals from U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, statements from Prime Minister Tony Blair and leading Anglican bishops, BBC vigils worldwide, rallies in Trafalgar Square, an online petition with over 100,000 signatures—the outpouring of support has been evocative and impressive. Yet it raises troubling questions about media coverage of terrorism and the culture of religious radicalism that sustains it.
Seized from his Gaza City office on March 13, Johnston allegedly is being held by a terror group called Jaish al-Islam (Army of Islam). Last month the organization delivered a videotape to al-Jazeera television—the network of choice for Islamo-fascists everywhere—demanding the release of cleric Abu Qatada, a Palestinian-Jordanian being held in Britain. Last week we learned that the British government entered into talks with Abu Qatada to see if he might aid in Johnston’s safe release. In a letter sent to the Islamic Observatory Center, Qatada was unambiguous: "I announce my full readiness to go on a trip to Gaza, with a delegation from BBC, to meet with the brothers, the abductors, concerning the release of the journalist Alan Johnston."
No surprise that Qatada would like to rejoin his "brothers" in Gaza: Found guilty of participating in terrorist activity in Jordan, Qatada lost a February appeal to avoid deportation to face trial. Dubbed Osama bin Laden’s "spiritual ambassador in Europe," Qatada is regarded as one of the UK’s most dangerous extremist preachers. He has been linked to al-Qaeda cells in Spain, France, Italy and Belgium. His vitriolic videos were found in the Hamburg flat used by Mohamed Atta—the ringleader of the 9/11 attacks. He reportedly gave "spiritual advice"—as the BBC delicately puts it—to Richard Reid, the would-be Atlantic flight shoe bomber, and Zacarias Moussaoui, both jailed for terrorist activities.
A few days ago Tony Blair and George W Bush held their last official meeting as Prime Minister and President. It was a pretty uneventful occasion. George W Bush was more inarticulate than usual. A war-weary President and an outgoing Prime Minister had no new insights into Iraq. A once great partnership was being drained of power before the eyes of the international press. In the few weeks that Blair has left at 10 Downing Street there seemed nothing that they could offer the world. But is there one last great deed that they could perform?
About a month ago George W Bush said that Sudan's regime had one last chance before the international community would finally act to protect Darfur. A powerful editorial in today's Washington Post reminds us what is still going on in this deeply troubled part of Africa:
For ten days after President Bush's 'last chance warning' helicopter gunships attacked defenceless villages;
Government aircraft were painted white so as to be confused with the UN's humanitarian operations;
More people are being added daily to the sad total of more than two million refugees;
Serious efforts to deploy a substantial African Union peacekeeping force remain stalled;
The UN continues to prevaricate.
A stretched US military and a threadbare UK military cannot do all that liberal interventionists would hope but a no-fly zone should be possible. In the last days of the Bush-Blair partnership this last great act should be delivered - ideally with the UN's approval but, if necessary, without. Related link:Will the world act now in Darfur? and The world has failed Darfur for four years
Unemployment down from 6.3% in 2003 to 4.5% now. Tax revenues up 11% on the same period in the previous fiscal year. 2007 set to be one of the best budget years for four decades. The stock market up by a half since 2003.
In normal times an economic record like this would produce dizzyingly good satisfaction ratings for a president. These are not normal times, of course, but a time of war and a war that is not going well. When George W Bush's presidency is evaluated, however, US economic growth - ignited by tax relief - will greatly boost the positive side of the ledger.
The data in this post is taken from a recent article by James C. Capretta for National Review Online.
The Iran hostages debacle was not good for the standing of the British armed forces as The Telegraph's Toby Harnden reminds us:
"I'm told that in certain parts of the Pentagon when British officers
walk into a room their American counterparts raise their arms in mock
surrender. Good-natured joshing, of course, but highly embarrassing
nevertheless. That kind of stuff used to be reserved for the French."
Mr Harnden thinks that the decision not to send Prince Harry to Iraq has increased the doubts of our American friends:
"To state the bleedin' obvious: no one should join the armed forces
unless they and the Government are prepared to risk them being killed. Isn't
this another example of softness in the armed forces - at the very top,
I hasten to add, and not among the vast majority those who actually do
the dirty work. This should have been thought through when Prince
Harry went to Sandhurst. How can you put a young man through all that
training and then say, "Er, sorry, too dangerous old chap. Terribly
embarrassing if you got slotted. How about a nice desk job?" From
this distance, it seems that something is very rotten in the senior
ranks of our armed forces. Inquiries should be held and heads should
roll. But, of course, they won't."
Nile Gardiner of the Heritage Foundation (writing for Human Events) agrees that Harrygate has hurt Britain's reputation as strong in the face of adversity. He recommends three paths to the restoration of Great Britain as a military power:
An increase in UK defence expenditure from the 70 year low of 2.2% of GDP to at least 3%.
Assertion of an independent British defence and foreign policy by a complete withdrawal from the European Union’s Common
Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), the European Security and Defence
Policy (ESDP), and the European Convention on Human Rights.
Prioritisation of the US-UK relationship which Con Coughlin acknowledges in today's Telegraph underpins British intelligence and military strength: "The end of the Bush/Blair affair might find the special relationship in a parlous state, but no British government, not even one headed by the pacifist-minded Gordon Brown, can ignore the fact that Britain, at the very least, relies heavily on America for its defence and security needs. Many of the recent terror plots to attack targets in mainland Britain were uncovered with the help of America's vastly superior intelligence resources, and the effectiveness of the British military relies heavily on American equipment and technology, even if the latter is sometimes only grudgingly provided."
For over 25 years Jerry Falwell has helped to define the public face of Christian fundamentalism—both for Americans and Europeans—and his death yesterday has critics and admirers scrambling to explain his legacy. Lost amid the cacophony, though, is a larger sense of the significance of Christianity to America’s democratic government.
Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, admiringly described a man "awakened to a sense of political and social responsibility." Columnist Susan Jacoby, by contrast, saw nothing but "bigotry, xenophobia, anti-modernism, and utter stupidity." The headlines in The Guardian and The Independent noted Falwell’s infamous remarks blaming the 9/11 attacks on feminists and gays. Much of the reader response to his death is too offensive to reprint here.
To be sure, Falwell could be a man of seemingly glaring contradictions. During the struggle for civil rights in the 1960s, he sermonized against mixing religion and politics:
"Believing the Bible as I do, I would find it impossible to stop preaching the pure saving gospel of Jesus Christ and begin doing anything else - including the fighting of communism, or participating in the civil rights reform. Preachers are not called to be politicians, but to be soul winners."
Today's Financial Times highlights the huge increase in the importance of fundraising for next year's Presidential election. The article notes the recent head of the Federal Election Commission's prediction that "the final two nominees will probably spend $1bn between them - we are going to have America's first billion-dollar president." The FT's Edward Luce writes:
Recent Comments