Sunday, January 8, 2012

Last great hope for ex-pat community

The British ex-pat community in the USA is a fickle group, at least when it comes to American politics. Most displaced Brits unexplainedly seem to be bedrock Republicans. But simply being Republican for them is not enough; their candidate must be female as well, it seems. I have no idea why this is so. Perhaps it is just a carryover from their childhood memories of their beloved Lady Thatcher. Of course, living now in the USA, their initial darling was the long-suffering Sarah Palin. Imagine, if you can, the sighs of hopelessness when the Teaparty First Lady said "Thanks, but no thanks," and tea no longer included Sarah.
The sorrow of the faithful was somewhat abated when Michelle Bachmann entered the arena (at least the sorrow of the time-strapped ex-pat soccer moms in the Midwest.) Now imagine, if you can, the lamentations and gnashing of teeth in the heartland when Mighty-Mum Michelle bit the big one in Iowa. No, you probably can't quite grasp their angst, or even why the uprooted Brits loved Michelle in the first place.

To those of you who despair at having only the Bouncingly Benign Barrack family left to support, I would remind you that all is not lost on the ex-pat Republican front: Newt Gingrich is still in the running.


1. Brilliant!
2. Scary
3. Annoying


  1. Not sure which British expats you're mixing with in the US but myself and every one I know is appalled that someone like Palin or Bachman could seriously be considered as a serious GOP candidate. (And the same for half the male candidates.)
    As for being Republican, ditto. Come to Chicago for a change of expat scenery.

  2. Ermmm... this was a satirical post. Like when opposites are pretended to be reality? See? (Note labels on posts.) Toni, I am POSITIVE you know I lie on this blog, and that I make fun of things. You have even laughed before. I guess I gored the wrong ox this time. I DO know what the political persuasion is in Chicago. I know how many times Chicagoans can vote. I know even the dead vote there. I know where the current President came from. I know the Daleys and Rosty. Puh-LEEZE don't talk to me about Chicago and politics with a straight face! That's part of what makes this funny, don't you see? And it IS funny. No? Ok, no. You obviously don't hate Republicans AND Democrats as passionately as I do. So be it. :)

  3. PS - Toni, that isn't a picture of Newt Gingrich.

  4. Oh. It's been a long day. Didn't see the thread. I think I'm just up to my eye balls with bloody Republicans at the moment!

  5. I know. And being fed up with Republicans means you are halfway to where you need to be. When, like me, you are up to your eyeballs with ALL bloody politicians, of every stripe, then you will be all the way over here with cynical ol' me.

    No, I don't know what the answer is.

  6. We can send thousands of Thatcherite Yank lovers to you if you offer us enough dollars.
    You can have the 'Daily Mail' also as most of the readers are from the US these days!

  7. Ex-pats here are never Thatcherites. They are to well-educated, open-minded (except about Republicans) and adventurous. You'll get no money from me for yours. :)

    Is the "Daily Mail" what that skinny guy on the bike in the picture on your blog a couple days ago delivers?

  8. Still a 'pat' ... no sign yet of being 'Ex'.

    Only one possible candidate pictured here.

    Subo would def'nitely get my vote.

  9. Re the Daily Mail - I used to go on there for UK news (ie. blog fodder) but it's now almost all crappy American news unless you click the "UK Home". I have enough of hicks, Tea-Partyers and gun toters on the TV news thank you very much.

  10. Hey Symdaddy! So all I have to do is muck up the waters a bit and you will come and comment? Cool! Don't you think in this picture of Susan she sort of looks like Newt? I'd vote for her too. ;)

    @Expat Mum - You are still holding back. Let it all out Toni. :) :) :)

  11. Well, I'm the guy who wants "None of the Above" to be a choice on the ballot paper.

    I don't understand your electoral system, (nor do I really understand ours), I'm deeply suspicious of any party system, and I trust politicians about as much as I'd trust a hungry crocodile.

    Even more so the U.S. presidential election system. I'm inclined to think that it's impossible for anybody without a bottomless money pit of backers, and a ruthless machine could get anywhere near the white house.

    So you either get a ruthless lying cheating bastard or a front for a load of other ruthless lying cheating bastards.

    Like I said, I don't pretend to understand any of it. those comments are just my opinion.

    I can't talk for the expats, but I'll tell you this for sure. The idea that either Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann could ever get elected scares me to bits.

    Interestingly, though, given some of the speeches about their determination that both have made in the past, that they're both quitters.

  12. @Soubriquet - A "none of the above" space on the ballot would be futile in my opinion. I'll admit to voting for nobody who appeared on the ballot, simply by not voting at all, but that doesn't prove anything either. Theoretically, a true "none of the above" space on the ballot would, if it wins, force new elections until good candidates were put forward. That's theory. In reality, the fix is in, and we both know it. Parties should be outlawed and candidates chosen "at large." (My opinion.)

    Our system for electing a President is simplicity itself, although some believe it is complicated. If you simply remember that our President is elected by the states, then it all becomes clear. In essence, there are 50 elections going on on election day, one in each state.

    Not each state has the same number of "electoral" votes: larger states are assigned more votes than smaller states, based on population. There are 535 votes in all (the total number of representatives and senators in Congress) and these 535 votes are split up among the states based on their population ratio to the whole. So California and New York and Illinois and Texas (for example) each get a lot of votes to cast for president, compared to smaller states that might get only 3 or 5 votes.

    The thing that pisses a lot of people off is that the rules require pure democracy: majority rules - winner takes all. In each of the 50 states, there is a battle going on; the popular vote in that state will determine for whom ALL that state's "electoral" votes will be cast later, when the "Electoral College" meets to officially choose the President. In order to win an election, the candidate for President must win half plus one, at least, of all the votes. There are 535 votes up for grabs, and when he or she garners 268 of them, he or she has become President. It becomes official a few weeks later, when the special representatives of all the states (together called the Electoral College) meet to officially cast the votes of the states. They are bound to cast the state's votes as the earlier popular vote dictated. That's how we know who the president is going to be the same day - we already know who the Electoral College HAS to vote for.

    For many years, there have been cries for the U.S. to pretend that states don't exist, or aren't important as ideological entities. These people would prefer to have only the large cities elect the president and trample over people who don't hold the same beliefs as city slickers. But for now, the states still elect the president.

    I'll leave it up to you as to which candidates "scare" you or which you feel are "quitters." The states will vote for whichever candidate most of their population likes.

  13. In short the US system is a farce!
    There is no other conclusion. We studied this during the OU and it is an absurd system that does not allow the citizen to vote, the representatives of the State chose for them.

  14. @Adullamite - Let me make a quick note of that: "Elementary school children in Scotland not tested on reading comprehension." Check.

  15. Couldn't comment earlier. Too busy throwing up (figuratively - literally I haven't thrown up in nearly three decades).

    I hate politics. And I'm all for the none of the above option ONLY if it forces us to get new candidates (can we add a clause that keeps the current candidates from running again soon or ever?)

  16. How do you throw up figuratively? No, wait. Don't tell me. :)

  17. @Adullamite -

    1. Our federal president is elected by the states.

    2. The states must vote for the candidate their citizens tell them to vote for.

    3. What the heck is the OU? Ohio University?

  18. Max, we have no 'elememtary' schools. We have primary schools. Reading is not checked as all Scots can read before beginning primary school.

    Tanisha, I understand that, you vote, and the state decides who you vote for. it's called ignoring the people and accepting bribes.



Related Posts with Thumbnails