April 06, 2005
It has more to do with what results would benefit the U.S. the most. Unquestionably, voting out Labour (and by extension Blair) from control of Parliament would send a bad message to terrorist insurgents in Iraq and throughout the Middle East. A vote against Blair is - for all intents and purposes - a vote of "no confidence" in the current British Government.
But more importantly, the world is currently woefully short on leaders with integrity. Say what you want about Blair's party or his socialist-leaning ideals, but the man understands the enemy we now face, just as another PM of note was able to identify pre-WWII Nazi Germany for what it was - a fascist State bent on the domination of Europe.
Tony Blair stood up in the face of political unpopularity and put his balls on the table. He may pay a political price at the polls a month from now. But at least he'll be able to sleep at night, knowing he did the right thing. Doing the right thing is almost never the popular thing. It's always easier to appease and dodge and avoid facing the enemy rather than to summon the courage to face it like a man - just look at the French.
Blair has been criticized as a "lap dog" or "poodle" to the Americans (and to President Bush in particular) by his opponents looking to damage his viability. But just like in the past, Blair has been a loyal partner and ally to the U.S. in a conflict that threatens not just these two nations, but all nations that value freedom. Tony Blair recognizes the importance of winning the War on Terror and that refusing to fight it head on will only buy - at best - a delay of the inevitable.
Patrick Ruffini has an analysis of the political landscape in Britain today and notes the rising influence of the Liberal Democrat Party that has been gaining ground over the last few election cycles.
Were Britain a Presidential system, with the choice for the executive divorced from the legislative, the choice would be clear: Blair in a heartbeat. He has led with moral clarity and conviction at considerable political risk to himself. In a Parliamentary system, with Blair's fate wrapped up with his freakishly left-wing party, the choice is much harder, but the overwhelming duty to support a loyal friend is still clear. If I were over there, I'd hold my nose and vote Labour, to secure the Anglosphere re-election hat-trick (Howard, Bush, and now Blair), to postpone the hostile left-wing takeover of New Labour for another election cycle, and to allow the Tories to find a true modernizer in the spirit of Thatcher with a clear shot at Labour in 2009 or 2010 (me, I'm holding out for Boris Johnson for PM). What would happen if on May 6th, the headlines read, "Blair Defeated" or "Blair Seriously Weakened?" Though much of the danger passed with the re-election of George W. Bush, it would surely be treated as another Spain.
When it comes to choices like this, this war is not just an issue. It is the only issue. For that reason, and that reason alone, Blair remains the best choice for the next four years."
And in my honest (and humble) opinion, Tony Blair deserves to remain Prime Minister.
Posted by: Gary at
02:27 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 657 words, total size 4 kb.
113 queries taking 0.1389 seconds, 236 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
