Was the the 1976 fight even dirtier than Huhne-Clegg?
December 26th, 2007
When David Steel played the toupee card
Lots has been written about the nastiness of this year’s battle for the Lib Dem leadership. Certainly the “Calamity Clegg” revelation appears to have been a pivotal moment. But was it as dirty as when David Steel beat John Pardoe for the leadership of the Liberal Party in 1976?
In that battle it was thought that Pardoe was the choice of party activists while Steel had the “establishment” and the “armchair members” on his side. As things got hotter Steel made a remarkable intervention. This is how Simon Hoggart recalled it in the Guardian last year.
Back in 1976 David Steel, a tough political knife-fighter, knew that his opponent, John Pardoe, was easily riled and that his ill-temper could end any chance he had. So he mused in front of two reporters (me and the man from the Daily Mail, as it happens) about Pardoe’s missing bald patch. Where had it gone? When the articles appeared, Pardoe duly went berserk, talking about “descending into the sewer” and the “drip drip drip of the total lie.” Steel won easily.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Just shows how ruthless Steel really was/is and that is “nice guy” image probably did him more harm than good.
Typical Lib Dem skulduggery and dirty-dealing…
Ooooh how they love a bitch fight, them Liberals!
I suppose it’s proof that there is nothing new in the Liberals having a personal slanging match while everyone else gets on with the real politics of winning power and running the country/county/council properly.
I still think that by this time next year we will be all asking ourselves whatever happened to the ‘Clegg Bounce’ myth.
3 - Clegg who?
Just to be a pedant Mike - I think your photo is a bit later than the 76 leadership contest.
Unless I’m mistaken, that is an SDP logo in the background…
Sad that the ruthless knife-fighter became David Owen’s pathetic little glove puppet, care of “Spitting Image”.
re 5. There are not many pics of the younger David Steel about - and I liked the one above.
Re 3 Big words from a supporter of a party that chnaged its leader 4 times in 8 eight years
8 - Perhaps we are simply less tolerant of failure than you chaps, Noorderling? I suppose one does become rather relaxed about that sort of thing when one has been out of power for a hundred years….
What did happen to the bald patch?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7160646.stm
7 - he must have looked very young in 76 then…!
8 - Miaow! I would just point out that your rate of burn is quite high in recent times, and we only hatcheted one chap - your “nice” party did for both of your most recent leaders…
Alex - does anyone in the legal profession (not counting Jacqui the Lackey in that number) believe it is necessary/sensible to extend to more than 28 days detention?
Seems they’re falling over themselves to discredit it.
No wonder Margaret Thatcher called him “the boy David”.
Re. Pardoe’s pugilistic personality, I remember that Denis Healey regarded him as ‘Denis Healey without the redeeming features’.
As for Liberal leadership contests, I wonder if David Penhaligon (had he not been killed in a car crash in 1986) might not have become leader of the new merged party in 1988.
15. Penhaligon being leader is something which probably everybody has assumed as a certainty, rather than merely speculated as a possibility.
When he goes to judgment, I fear that Almighty God will ask him, “David, oh David, how many children did your abortion Act kill?
The thing that puzzles me is, whatever happened to Pardoe? He lost his seat, but disappeared without trace. No seat in the Lords, no seat on Party committees, nothing. Was he fed up with the Party, or the Party fed up with him?
Actually, the thing that puzzles me is, what ever happened to Jeremy Thorpe?
He had ‘go home and prepare for government’ spirit
re 18. Pardoe’s spirit still lives on. Amongst those people I know who were in the Liberal Party then and are still in the Lib Dems the Pardoe supporters of 1976, almost without exception, voted for Huhne in this latest election. The Steel voters went for Clegg.
9 I suppose one does become rather relaxed about that sort of thing when one has been out of power for a hundred years
Perhaps that explains the LibDems and the thong thing. You know, like someone who hasnt had a sh@g in ages will wear gray moth eaten pants (or thongs) just to tempt fate…
Interesting, Mike. I conform to your theory,as I voted for Pardoe in 1976, for Huhne this time (and last time).
21 Alf
You seem to know much of these matters. Tell us more!
20 & 22. Sorry, I voted Pardoe in ‘76, and Beith, Ballard & Hughes before finally getting fed up and voting for a winner with Clegg. But I would have voted for Steve Webb had he stood. I think Clegg won, because enough of us on the left of the Party were willing to go with Steve’s judgement that Clegg would make the better leader.
17. In terms of thinking, sentient beings? Probably not many…
Interesting article Mike. I see nothing wrong though with highlighting a flaw like a bad temper.
O/T - Don’t know if this has been mentioned allready but I see Lynton Crosby is to help out the Tories in the London mayoral elections. Could make things quite interesting.
27 Wow! Lynton Crosby!! Any chance Stills, Young and Nash be joining him?
Could make all the difference.
20 - never heard of Pardoe Mike, but as we live fairly close I’d imagine you also received the missive from David Steel urging us to vote for Huhne. Wonder how this ties in with the link you suggest?
O/T - Ladbrokes offering 12-1 against Edwards being Democratic nominee - is this worth a punt?
23 “you seem to know much of these matters. Tell us more!”
I attended some LibDem gatherings and velcro’d trousers were a must. Well, why not? If there’s little chance of getting to number 10, enjoy the ride and enjoy the benefits.
30. Depends on whether you think Edwards will come above Obama in Iowa.
PergusMac“David, oh David, how many children did your abortion Act kill?”
No, that’s an utterly silly thing to say. Children are never aborted, only foetuses.
30. I wish it was having backed Edwards from a long way out but at this time, I’m not sure it is
Your best hope would be a bet/lay. If Edwards can win in Iowa his odds might shorten up and that 12’s may give you some potential to lay off.
33. Human beings’ capacity for self-deception is endless.
Interesting that Mike S a member of the Lib tribe sees the evidence of the Pardo-Steel clash to this very day.
Same thing really in the US Democratic Party, where you can still get burned by the smoldering ashes of the the firefight between Gene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy for leadership of anti-war Democrats in 1968.
Also true to a degree with respect to Republican activists who beat on each other pretty severely in the 1976 Ford-Reagan brouhaha. Which in turn harkened back to previous epic battles with the GOP between conservatives & moderates in 1912 (Wm Taft v T Roosevelt), 1940 (conservatives v Willkie) and 1952 (Robert Taft v Ike) and 1964 (H20 v Rocky).
Back to the UK there is a wealth of examples: just from 1900 forward, Balfour v Joe C.; Asquith v LG; Baldwin v Austen C; Neville C v WSC; Bevin v Morrison; Bevan (and later Wilson) v Gaitskill will stop there more than enough to make my point.
Canadian Grits had unpleasantness of Creitien v Martin, whereas Canuck Tories merely had unpleasantness of Brian Mulrooney, considering that early ’80s “clash” between “Joe Who?” and “Lyin’ Brian” was to absurd even for Great White North politics.
Do believe Australian Labor had some pains with “What’s Yer Round” Bob Hawke v “Lizard of Oz” Paul Keating.
And even the Anglo-America press covered the intra-conservative duels between Giscard d’E v Pompidou, Pompidou v Chirac though am not sure how much these pentrated to the rank-and-file or the Gallic equivilant.
30 Not when you can get 18/1 on Betfair.
32 The market doesn’t seem to think so. Edwards is about 5.5 while Obama is about 2.2 (midpoints).
So why not back Edwards for nominee and lay him in Iowa, or vice versa
36 Yes - and I think if Brown loses the next election, the rancour between the deposed Blairites and the failed Brownies will burn for a very long time yet.
Not difficult to envisage the scale of the antipathy the Blairites will extend to Brown’s faction given they made the party ditch their most successful electoral asset ever.
It’s pretty thinly hidden now, as it is.
Arent those liberals horrid? Good job i support the nice conservative party.
LDs = 0% 2008 = *n sync (bye bye bye)
29 - tpfkar - you must be quite young and fresh. I am ‘only’ 41 but remember pardoe well…….
Donorgate police ‘to press criminal charges
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/27/nloans127.xml
Roll on 2008.
39-”2008 = *n sync (bye bye bye)”
LOL!
42 - just keeping y’all informed on the future!
SUPER McANUFF ON THE 90 FOR WATFORD!!!!
38. Robin Wiggs. This is the root of my enduring anger with Brown. He bullied Blair out of office and bullied the Labour PLP to endorse him. All founded on his view of personal entitlement to become Prime Minister.
What right had he? None. Who voted for him to be PM? No one. What qualities has he brought to the position? Very few. Did he act in party or self interest? The answer is clear. Has he helped my betting this year? Too right.
More of the same next year please Gordon. I’m betting on it.
33 “No, that’s an utterly silly thing to say. Children are never aborted, only foetuses.”
I understand that to get the children’s head through the birth canal, the abortionist drills a hole in his/her skull, scrambles the brain and sucks it out.
Anyone who choses to kill their own young has something wrong with them and would probably vote Labour or LibDem.
I don’t really understand how Cherie Blair can be pro-abortion and call herself Catholic.
43-LOL, let’s see if you are right!
Questions I haven’t seen asked too much, even on pb.com:
1) Who will win the second contest, the GOP Wyoming caucus, on January 5th (after Iowa but before New Hampshire)? As Wyoming is *the* safest Republican state (although threatening to punch her wheelchair-bound opponent brought a Congresswoman as close as a GOP candidate will ever come to losing the ‘at-large’ House seat in the 2006 MidTerms ), might not its view (in spite of being the least-populus) be an interesting indicator of GOP feeling nationally? There is no market on InTrade, and I have seen no polls for WY.
2) What odds that a candidate (I’m thinking Rudy) will splash out on a Super Bowl advertisement (estimated at $2.7m for 30 seconds, to be seen by 90m Americans) on Sunday Feb 3rd, as the best way to hit all the Super Tuesday (Feb 5th) states at once?
3) If McCain wins the nomination/gets too close to Rudy/Mitt, what odds on somebody bringing up the “he was born in the Panama Canal Zone, so might not be a ‘natural born’ citizen, and therefore might not be eligible for the Presidency - let’s avoid a Constitutional Crisis by voting for one of us” issue? I’m not saying it’s an issue, I’m asking if the other Republicans are dirty enough to try it - I reckon possibly, if pushed. Would the Dems in a GE?
4) How will the President’s State of the Union address on January 28th affect the Florida primaries (of both parties). If he focusses on Iraq, I think it hurts McCain (only pro-surge candidate); if it focusses on terrorism, Giuliani does better; if he talks about faith, I think it hurts Huckabee (not another preacher); if he talks about abortion or gay marriage, I think Rudy and Mitt both suffer. What do people think?
5) How are Democrats, now all acolytes of Al Gore’s anti-climate change lobby, playing the environmental message, given the particular importance of the Michigan primary this year. Any singing ’screw the environment, save the car’, or are they playing it green, and just toning it down in Detroit?
6) Expanding from 4 - doesn’t the President owe McCain a favour for his endorsement in 2004, and for backing him in the surge? Who does Bush want as his GOP successor? Will he stay out the race (he dodged questions at a press conference like a real pro)?
7) How are the other elections in November going to affect vote turnout for the Presidential Election in swing states. The Udall cousins are both running for the Senate in New Mexico and Colorado, which are both key. How will the other swing states be affected?
46 - he was right. I could remember when the LDs started… and finished!
48 - sssssh dont spoil it for Mark senior and the others…..
48-LOLOLOLOL!!!
48/49. I’m starting to see double.
50:
Q What do you call a good night out with the LDs?
A Unlikely
Q Whats the difference between LDs and hula hoops?
A Not much. Hula hoops are shaped 0 - the same % LDs will get at next election. But hula hoops taste better
Q What do you get when you put the LD parliamentary party after the next GE in a cab?
A Only one person to pay the fare LOLOL
44 - Stjohn
‘What right had he? None. Who voted for him to be PM? No one. What qualities has he brought to the position? Very few. Did he act in party or self interest? The answer is clear. Has he helped my betting this year? Too right.’
Excellent comment - it’s how I feel and I’m a Labour sympathiser - what is your political leaning?
52-The other day you said that Ave it 08 was going to be worse with the LibDems. I don’t know how this is possible!
OT USA New York Times calls for action on attorneys general scandal:
“considerable evidence emerged that the Bush administration did what seemed unthinkable: it used federal prosecutors, who are supposed to be scrupulously nonpartisan, to help the Republican Party win elections.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/26/opinion/26wed1.html
54 ‘Ave it 10′ tells me that soon there will only be two parties: Con and ‘Lab and other friends of Jacqui Smith’
(Dont know where gordon has gone)
56-LOL!
53. Jack O.
I am a Labour Party member but I no longer shout about it. My political views are fairly middle of the road.
I have had to bribe my reluctant son 10 pence per leaflet to help me do a Labour Party leaflet drop tomorrow, which was supposed to have been done before Xmas.
Mind you he is more amenable than usual having been taken to Stamford Bridge today to see his side, Villa, take part in a sheer feast of football.
You don’t have a brother called W perchance?
OK - thats enough political analysis for tonight
Goodnight
PS where’s mark senior and paul lloyd? I’m missing them
47.
1. Wyoming is not holding a caucus, they’re holding a “nominating convention”, which means that the various party officials in 12 of the 28 counties in Wyoming will come out and nominate delegates to the convention. The electorate for this is less than 500 people, and therefore Wyoming is unlikely to be consequential. (The other 16 counties will hold conventions in March.)
2. Many of them, possibly even all (with a chance of winning) who are still in, will. That makes it far less important.
3. They’d have no case. The Canal Zone was a US territory, which is all that is needed. They’d just look like idiots.
4. It will only affect the race substantially if he endorses a candidate (which would surprise me). The President is really not able to set the agenda in his last year in office.
5. The Michigan primary is irrelevant for the Democrats; the ballot will include only Clinton, Gravel and Kucinich as the others have all withdrawn their names in protest of the violation of the DNC’s rules.
6. It would be very unorthodox for the President to make an endorsement unless it be an endorsement of his sitting VP (as, for example, Clinton endorsed Gore over Bradley in 2000). Especially given Bush’s unpopularity, he will sit this one out.
7. Senate races do not substantially affect Presidential races; only the opposite is true. Enormous landslides might have some effect. For example, John Lynch may well win over 70% of the vote for governor in New Hampshire again, which could contribute to New Hampshire being safe for the Democratic presidential nominee, but such landslides are exceedingly rare, especially in swing states.
55 - I watched the (Senate?) hearings, and they were cringeworthy. It would be very, very bad if prosecutions were brought for Contempt of Congress - that means jail-time and a big fine.
60 - Fantastic Mike (New Jersey), that has cleared many of those up entirely! If I could trouble you for follow-ups?
Has a candidate for President ever bought a Super Bowl advert before? Given they are now works of art, how will people react to use of this slot for politics?
Also, I think Sandy Levinson (law prof) brought the case Jones v Bush in Texas on the reading of the XIIth Amendment (Cheney from Texas or Wyoming) - could anyone bring such a case about McCain’s status if he won? In what court - writ of cert to SCOTUS directly? (For the record, I agree with you, but I think there’s more room for malicious debate than you’re giving credit for: about ‘naturalization v natural-born’ and whether it was actually a US territory, or just US controlled, and how legitimate that was given no Panamania signed the treaty)
Again, thank you for really good, crisp answers.
“Labour revolts against Brown”
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article3286804.ece
“No wonder many people take the safe option of saying, “Don’t write Gordon off”. But my argument is that those people are living in a parallel universe and that in the real world it is all over for the Prime Minister. I won’t list everything that has gone wrong since the turning point of the year, which was not 27 June, which we all thought it would be, but 1 October.”
http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/john_rentoul/article3286790.ece
Good night
I think the really interesting question is whether Huhne will suffer the Pardoe fate of losing his seat at the next election. Pardoe was toast after the 79 election. With a little tory exertion, suspect that Chris could easily suffer the same fate.
47 - My take:
1. Agree with 60
2. Ditto. Though one of Obama’s big moments was when he delivered intro for Monday (or was it Sunday?) Night Football telecast.
3. Ditto. Back in 1968 there was a bit of a flap because Mitt’s daddy, George Romney who was (for a while) a GOP candidate for Pres, was born in Mexico in a colony of US Mormons, which along with similar settlements in Alberta, Canada was established to facilitate plural marriage. Believe weight of educated opinion said George was eligible because his parents were US citizens & he returned with them to the US so he (like John Q. Adams) he was nativeborn not naturalized.
4. Bush could conceivably change dynamics of the race with super-hawkisk SOTU which would not convince many voters, but would scare the bejasus out of ‘em. But my guess is that W will have virtually zero impact on the race, on the public or anything else for that matter. Everyone over here (Republicans included) is counting the days until it’s good riddance to bad rubbish.
5. Think Mike(NJ)is correct re: Michigan, though wouldn’t shock me if the boycott wears a bit thin IF candidates perceive it to be in their interest to goose the Michiganders. As for the big picture question, believe that Dems will be able to finesse the balance between the economy & the environment BETTER than the Republicans, in part because they will have difficulty distancing themselves from the Cheney Administrations truly pathetic record for the environment AND the (long-term) economy.
6. Please oh Please oh Please oh PLEASE may W endorse the eventual nominee BEFORE the convention!!! BUT then I’m a Democrat! NOTE that one of the reasons for McCain’s political near-death experience this summer was JMcC’s efforts to secure the “services” of the Bushies by allowing them free reign with fundraising, personnel, strategy, media, you name it. Naturally they drove his campaign right into the ground, because ALL they cared about was 1) making money; and 2) sinking McCain without leaving too many footprints. BECAUSE as you may notice, W and Co are QUIETLY backing Romney.
7. Disagree with M(NJ) on this one somewhat. He’s right in that the Presidential race will overshaddow US Senate or Governor races. Also even he notes that big state races can impact a close presidential situation. Think this happens more than M(NJ) thinks, because a staterace landside is NOT required, just a significant boost at the right time & place that helps flip the margin from negative to positive. Also, 2nd, 3rd & lower-tier candidates can help the head of the ticket IF they wage effective grassroots and/or media campaigns that turn out voters who otherwise would NOT vote. Unlikely to post large number of new votes that way BUT the number of close state situations is pretty high and to repeat don’t need a down-ballot landslide to make an impact.
42 - Did you know that “the Zone” sent delegates to national conventions of both US parties until it was abolished and returned to Panama?
Actually think the key issue is the fact that McCain’s father was a US citizen STATIONED in the PCZ by the US Navy, living with his wife who was also a US citizen. Who subsequently returned to the US proper with the bundle of joy. Meaning McC is native born under US law not naturalized. Have to get the judge drunk first before he’d rule otherwise.
Forgot to add to above, my guess is that US citizenship status of individuals born in CZ to US citizens is well-established in their favor.
One last one from me.
Was Bill Clinton impeached? Yes or No? I thought I knew the answer. And then discovered I was wrong. And then right all along! I think technically the answer is clear?
69. The vote has to be passed by 2/3rds, doesn’t it? Impeachment proceedings is not the same as being impeached….
69 - Yes, Bill Clinton was impeached, by the House of Representatives. No, he was NOT convicted, by the Senate.
Same as with Andy Jackson.
Hello peebles.
Just for the record, I had Christmas dinner with a motley assortment of family and relatives: a pretty fair cross section of British society. There was a bus driver, a real estate dealer, a retired salesman, a chiropractor, a Cornish sex memoirist, a semi-retired cook, a student who will vote for the first time in 2010…
Etc etc.
Every single one of the guests was quite strongly anti-Labour, all of them were vehemently critical of Brown - expressing open and angry contempt.
This doesn’t mean they will all vote Tory. Probably most won’t. But they certainly won’t be voting Labour again unless some miracle happens.
Brown is doomed.
73, two questions about guest #5:
a) is this person voting by any chance for Mebyon Kernow?
b) where does one train for this vital work, and what’s the rate?
re 40 Ave it, yes as I remember from the pb.com party tpfkar is quite young - so young in fact it looks like he’s gone to bed
72. Johnson
71. Sea Shanty Irish. I was informed recently by a “notable” source that the fact that the Senate did not call Clinton to task meant that he was not impeached.
History and Pub Quiz compilers across the land demand clarification!
Sean T. I presume the Cornish sex memoirist is your good self?
Please follow through with your intention of intending Mike’s New Year Bash. Your humour is fantastic and when I attended last time your absence was many guest’s main regret. I don’t think you would be physically or verbally punched!
It would be fun to meet you.
St John. Very kind of you to say so. Yes I do hope to be at the party, though I may be prevented by foreign jobs. Fingers x’d.
And yes I am the “Cornish sex memoirist”. Surely there can’t be more than one. Can there?
Kernow bys vyken, and goodnight.
77 see following citations from US CONSTITUTION
Article I, Section 2, last sentance:
“The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”
Article I, Section 3, last 2 paragraphs:
“The Sneate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they sall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside; And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
“Judgement in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States,; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”
So the impeachment process consists of two separate parts:
–impeachment proper, by the House, which is akin to an indictment; passage of “articles of impeachment” requires majority vote
–trial on grounds specified in the articles, with CJ presiding; conviction requires 2/3 majority vote on at least one article.
In articles of impeachment, each article is voted upon separately by the House, and only those that receive majority are forwarded to the Senate.
Note that in impeachment trials, the House appoints “managers” who act as prosecuting attorneys; the officer impeached is granted the privlege (but this is not an absolute constitutional right) of being represented by “defense” counsel.
Our founding fathers modeled the US impeachment provisions (in state as well as federal law) after British parliamentary impeachments. With one BIG difference: they expressly forbad any punishiment EXCEPT for removal from office and denial of future office. Wheras in British history impeachment by parliament generally included not just depravation of office, but also of life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.
80. SSI. So was he or wasn’t he impeached? Yes or No?
Well, I don’t know about the rest of you but I’m peached.
See you in the morning.
82 - Yes, Clinton (Like Andy JOHNSON before him) was impeached but not convicted and thus not removed from office.
Unless of coure you expand the definition (as many people do) to include the conviction & removal. BUT think the governing language of the US Const. makes it clear that the House has “sole Power of Impeachment” but of course has NO authority to remove. Wheras the Senate has “sole Power to try Impeachments” but ONLY if the officer is impeached in the first place, and only the House can do that.
In non-political talk, when we use the word “impeach” we mean to impunge, to question, to allege. It does not mean absolute proof, certainty or (dare I say) conviction.
Back when I was a lad teachers & professors would typically talk about the “failed impeachment” of Andrew Johnson, because while of course the articles passed the House the Senate refused to convict (by one vote) and thus the process was a failure from the perspective of its supporters, opponents and History.
18. It was as a result of reading this thread that it occurred to me that I didn’t know what he looked like (so I gooled him to find out) and I was surprised to discover even that he is still alive.
19. Jeremy Thorpe still does things occasionally - I saw him at a Jenkins Commission public meeting in London in c.1999.
45. I understand that to get the children’s [sic] head through the birth canal, the abortionist drills a hole in his/her skull, scrambles the brain and sucks it out.
What has that got to do with “killing children”?
47 ,60 etc
1) I haven’t seen any polls either, but would speculate that Wyoming could be strong for Mitt Romney as there is a significant Mormon population there. May be irrelevent in the great scheme of things but can be spun I suppose.
2) Superbowl ads. I think there is some rule that political ads have to be sold at the lowest ad rate. Wouldn’t make many friends at Fox if they had to give valuable Superbowl slots to politicians at low rates….
3) I don’t think any campaign, Rep or Dem is going to want to be seen to be accusing McCain of all people of being less than 100% American. Would backfire hugely and on a visceral level for most people. Even if there was a legal case which I doubt, ways around it would be found with all party support.(Like the issue with the Ghurka who won the VC being denied entry to Britain)
4)SOTU won’t make any difference. Lame Duck. Wouldn’t shock me of they didn’t even put it on the networks this time, and left it to cable news.
5) No idea
6) Would think Bush will stay out of endorsing anyone, but will leverage his donor network as needed.
7) Doubt Senate races would make much difference. Converse could be true though - Presidential race driving Senate turnout. One -off local ballot referenda could make a difference though - Bush in 2004 wanted all the same sex marriage amendemnts on the ballot as it supposedly drove turnout among Christian conservatives, not least in Ohio.
69. Yes he was - there is no possible scope for any fuzziness on that one.
70. Yes it is - “being impeached” is like “being prosecuted”, not like “being convicted”.
82. Yes.
47(3). What if there is some doubt about where someone was born? I suppose it is conceivable that a poor orphan from a peripatetic slum background might not know where he/she was born, but might still be able to have enough talent to become president. I gather that there is some question about whether Alberto Fujimori might have been born in Japan, which (if true) should have made him ineligible to become president of Peru.
86 - comments on points you raise:
1) Just checked the WYGOP website, party his holding 23 county conventions, where precinct committee men & women will elect delegates pledged to pres candidates to state convention. Hard to tell how national press will treat it, my guess will get a blurb at best in most media outlets. As for Mormons, as of 2000 were 20% of WY church adherents, not bad but also heavily concentrated in western counties not far from Utah.
2) You are right about federal campaigns having right to buy time at lowest market rate. Which for the Superbowl is astronomical. Think that’s the right answer, perhaps some kindly media buyer can further enlighten?
3) You have a point, though think that there wouldn’t be much outrage BUT it would be fodder for late night comedians who are just starting to resume operations.
7) Excellent point about statewide ballot measures, which are a factor in fewer than half the states (esp. western) BUT which can indeed impact turnout. In particular, issues that mobilize voters on abortion, gay marriage, gun control or taxes have been seen as a boost for GOP candidates (though some evidence that all in gen & anti-gay esp are loosing their punch).
88 - Very conceivable that a credible candidate for President will emerge someday with illegal immigrant parents whose own citizenship was at issue. In that case would be two courts:
1) federal judiciary to US Supreme Court
2) trial by media in court of public opinion
My guess is that decisions would cooincide. IF no “unimpeachable” proof one way or another THEN believe that preponderance of the evidence would prevail. And that would almost certainly tend to favor the kind of hypothetical you contemplate.
NOTE that back in 1828 & 1832 there was speclation about birthplace of Andrew Jackson (right name this time) including one theory that he’d been born in Ulster like his parents. But he stoutly claimed native birth PLUS his people were undeniably pro-Independence AND he bore the scars he’d got from a British slashing - and that all turned out to be proof enough.
Triva question. No president has been born outside the US, but one did die outside the US. Who?
We often talk about “governments losing” raather than “oppositions winning” elections. I wonder if there is an anti oppinion poll, measuring the strength of hostility, rather than support for any given party. Certainly I fear that the fall in Lib Dem support over the past two years has also been matched by an increasing sense of hostility to a party no longer seeen as “nice”.
Meanwhile, perhaps the problem for the Conservatives is that not only has their support been relatively weak, they also have a very strong hostility to contend with. I must say that Ave It, Marcus Wood etc are not exactly helping with their triumphalism - it does remind me of Kinnock and the famous Sheffield rally - and in the end the hostility to Kinnock was so great that they could not even beat the pathetic and futile John Major. So perhaps the Conservatives should not count their chickens… it took fear and discipline to create the landslide of 1997- not crowing and triumphalism. If Brown were removed, then I suspect the current support for the Conservatives could be revealed to be very fragile.
As I was involved in more important things like A Levels I only vaguely remember the Steel/Pardoe contest although I recall Pardoe did seem to annoy local Tories rather more for some reason. Ironically in view of Mike’s preamble Steel strongly supported Huhne in the recent contest.
Clegg’s nice guy image (as opposed to the nasty Mr Huhne) probably swung a few important votes from the more old-fashioned Lib Dem member. The endorsement from Steve Webb and Simon Hughes no doubt garnered some unexpected votes from the left of the party. Hughes happily used his position as party president to chase up late voters and at the same time suggest they vote Clegg. Plenty of media spin promulgated by Clegg’s team pushed the line Clegg would be the easy winner.
Ths fact he scraped home by just 500 votes in spite of all this backing suggests he has a lot of work to do to get the Lib Dem membership fully behind him.
90 John Tyler who died in 1862 in Richmond, Virginia, then part of the Confederacy, so not in the United State