The US Presidential Race

The U.S. Republican Party's attempts to find a candidate to challenge Barak Obama in November is nothing if not entertaining.

It's a shame that American politics is dictated so much by how much wealth you have and/or how much extra cash you can raise, apparently without limit, but that democratic deficit is somewhat offset by the sheer entertainment value of the shenanigans these guys get up to in order to get elected.

They indulge in negative campaigning on radio and television to an extent that British politicians can only dream of. Newt Gingrich (what kind of a name is that?! Nearly as weird as Barak Obama) put out an advert the other week designed to punch out his main rival, Mitt Romney. Added to Romney's many sins, including the fact that he "loves firing people" was the fact that "he speaks French"! I'm struggling to find that a reason for disqualifying the man.

Of course all American politicians have to be openly followers of God. The trouble is, which God? The Evangelicals' God, the Catholics' God, the Baptist's God, the Presbyterians' God, the Mormons' God? Perhaps not the Mormons' God (could be Mitt Romney's undoing), and certainly not the Muslims' God. If you don't like (the avowed Christian) Barak Obama one of the popular insults is to call him a Muslim. This is all very perplexing to us in the UK because our politicians "don't do God", nor would we expect them to.

The election of an openly atheist American to the presidency is about as likely as Greece paying off its debts

.

The front runners for the Republican nomination now appear to be Mitt Romney the Mormon, or Newt Gingrich the "open marriage" advocate. There must be a touch of the Mormon in Gingrich, having had several wives, though to be fair in his case, not all at the same time. But Romney is a rare Republican in having once supported the idea of a health care programme; this might have something to do with God telling Joseph Smith to keep on taking the tablets.

If I were a betting man I'd put money on Barak Obama still being President after November.

Obama a Socialist? I don't think so!

The rise and rise of the "Tea Party" movement in America is hard to understand. It appears to be as mad as a cabbage. Is it something written by Lewis Caroll? Is it the Mad Hatter's Tea Party?

Straight away I have to apologise for using pejorative terminology, because this is what seems to be contaminating political debate in the States. As Jon Stewart said at the recent rally in Washington, if you amplify everything you hear nothing.

I have heard members of the "Tea Party" movement interviewed on BBC Television say that President Obama is working towards a Socialist government. What nonsense! Can you imagine the words Socialism and USA in the same sentence?

One is tempted to ask, what is inherently wrong with Socialism anyway? Capitalism has done spectacularly well in the past couple of years, hasn't it?! It's a mistake, by the way, to confuse Social Democracy (which is probably about as "Left" as the USA will ever get) with Communism, and some people in the "Tea Party" movement don't seem able to understand the difference. The important word to understand is Democracy of course. If a majority decide via the ballot box for one system or another, then there can be no complaints.

The outcome of the mid-term elections should, one hopes, be based on reasoned debate rather than name-calling and simplistic exaggerations.

What is the "Tea Party" Movement? On BBC TV news this morning, one American described it as "George Bush on Steroids".

Oops! There I go again. Sorry.

BP - (Barak's Politics)

The devastating oil blow-out in the Gulf of Mexico was caused by an inadequate fail-safe device that was not owned by BP.

The rig was not owned by BP.

The whole operation was put into place under the eyes of a lax and inadequate US regulatory system.

The need for deep-water operations like this has been driven by an unassuaged American thirst for "cheap" oil.

BP is a huge international corporation with vast wealth. 40% of its shareholders are Americans. It has been known as "BP" for years, and is still referred to as BP, except from the mouth of the US President, when it becomes "British Petroleum".

BP has committed itself to dealing with this problem, to be working on the Louisiana coast for long after the media have departed, and to compensate everyone affected.

Contrast this with the attitude of the Union Carbide Company that contributed to the deaths of 15,000 people 20 years ago in the Bhopal explosion in India. We were recently reminded of this incident with the conclusion of an Indian court case against company officials. The CEO never had to answer for his company's actions and disregard for human suffering, and remains at home in retirement.

It is therefore inappropriate for Obama to be talking about "kicking ass" in the BP case, or taking legal action to prevent the payment of shareholder dividends, and legal action to enforce payment of salaries of other oil company workers who might be laid off due to an embargo on deep-water drilling operations.

£20 billion of British pension funds are tied up in BP shares, and the share price has been tumbling further with every statement coming out of Obama's mouth.

I suspect his attitude (which is also fuelling anti-British feeling in some parts of America) has something to do with the mid-term elections, and the need to be seen to be a better performer than George W Bush after "Katrina".

So long as BP is accepting its responsibilities, is working to solve the problem, and is prepared to return the affected shoreline and local waters back to normal, the President should keep his nose out of the company's affairs and stop trying to control something that BP (and associated experts) should be controlling.