I could not get so excited about the UK election.
Between Labour and Tory,
the choice was just not as clear-cut as it was
in the US election
or the Spanish election
or the Australian election
or the German election.
The Tories did their best to convince us that they'd be weak on defence,
but I don't believe them.
I think they'd be fine.
On the one hand, I'm a great fan of Tony Blair,
who understands the post 9/11 world -
but the problem is
I don't like much of the Labour party.
I worry that after Blair goes, Labour will revert to its old anti-American self.
If only one could vote for Blair without voting for Labour.
On the other hand, I like Tory policies,
and I think most of the Tory party are sensible,
but I was turned off Michael Howard by his shabby, second-thoughts opportunism on Iraq.
Howard is an alienator of potential new Tory supporters like me.
I far prefer Blair to Howard.
So I'm happy with a third Blair win.
Maybe now the Tories will realise the kind of things that attract conservative voters
sums up the election result:
It's not quite a win, not quite a loss.
It is interesting that
Bush, Blair and Howard - the three leaders of the Iraq War of 2003
- all won re-election in 2004-05.
Sure, the war was unpopular with some people.
the war's unpopularity has clearly been exaggerated.
Much of the media bought into the "Bush lied. Blair lied." rhetoric.
But most people didn't.
They either supported the war,
or opposed it but didn't care that much
compared with other issues.
The media's "Conventional Wisdom" version of history will forever
portray this as an unpopular war.
But the less dramatic truth is that it was
not very unpopular.