Marbury

time out

I'm on holiday for the next week or so. When I get back, the election starts in earnest (these events not causally related, I don't think). Looking forward to it. In the meantime, enjoy this proof that Obama can take the piss out of himself.

why akin may not be going anywhere

 

Despite Congressman Akin's glutinously sincere plea for forgiveness, Republican Party bosses are determined to see him ousted from the race against Senator Claire McCaskill in Missouri. They think he's roadkill in the state, and a stain on the GOP brand nationally.

Even Mitt Romney, who as the Republican presidential candidate is the party's de facto national leader, has called on Akin to quit. (By the way, The Guardian's reference to Republican "difficulties on abortion" is an example of wishful reporting. The party is as unified on the issue as the Democrats are, probably more so, and nationally they can claim to be winning the argument).

So is Akin a dead douchebag walking? Not necessarily. As the ever-excellent Ben Smith points out, Akin is used to being in a fight with the party leadership. He is part of a conservative party-within-a-party that runs on anti-Washington anger, within which being dumped on by GOP bosses is a badge of honour. So far, he's digging in and soaking it up.

Of course, parts of that counter-establishment are also calling him on him to go, and that may well prove fatal. But if Akin can persuade enough right-leaning Missourians that he's the victim of an establishment witchhunt, he might just make it to polling day. At which point, he'll lose.

team murdoch

Marbury can exclusively reveal (with the help of The Guardian) that the Culture Secretary's unusually close relationship with the Murdochs continues:

Bradley Wiggins and Mark Cavendish, meanwhile, have been confirmed as the leaders of Team Sky's lineup for next month's Tour of Britain....

...Team Sky have also confirmed Jeremy Hunt in their line-up, along with Bernhard Eisel, Christian Knees and Thomas Lofkvist.

I think the air should be cleared on this one.

still not much drama in obamaland

Opportunity for irrelevant but cute Oval Office photo duly taken.

A new e-book from Politico reports that the Obama campaign team is riven by personal disagreements and conflicts. David Axelrod isn't talking to Stephanie Cutter. There are doubts about the effectiveness of the DNC chairwoman. Everyone thinks Biden is an idiot. That's about it, really.

It's fairly small potatoes, and the reason this counts as news at all is that Obama ran a famously tight ship in 2008. His team, especially in contrast to Hillary Clinton's and then John McCain's, were as close to being as one mind as it's possible to be in a political campaign. They rarely leaked - except on purpose - and there were, apparently, no major strategic arguments, or warring cliques.

Such unity is impossible to maintain in government and maybe not even desirable. The decisions become much bigger, more consequential and more complex, involving many more different parties, including those from outside the inner circle. Then, as anyone who watched the last series of West Wing knows, when the reelection campaign takes off there are inevitable conflicts between the campaign team, who are focused on 100% on the election, and the White House team who still want to get stuff done.

Actually, Obama and his team might conclude that if this is the best Politico has got, then they must be doing a pretty good job.

There are a few interesting snippets further down the piece, however, including this bit about the supposed attitude of Obama towards his opponent:

Obama really doesn’t like, admire or even grudgingly respect Romney. It’s a level of contempt, say aides, he doesn’t even feel for the conservative, combative House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, the Hill Republican he disliked the most. “There was a baseline of respect for John McCain. The president always thought he was an honorable man and a war hero,” a longtime Obama adviser said. “That doesn’t hold true for Romney. He was no goddamned war hero.”

Time and again Obama has told the people around him that Romney stood for “nothing.” The word he would use to describe Romney was “weak,” too weak to stand up to his own moneymen, too weak to defend his own moderate record as the man who signed into law the first health insurance mandate as Massachusetts governor in 2006, too weak to admit Obama had done a single thing right as president.

This is particularly interesting because it suggests that Obama agrees with Marbury on the question of how to tackle Romney.

So far the Obama campaign has spent a ton of its funds on persuading voters that Romney is a bastard. In doing so, they risk building Romney up into a worthy enemy when they ought to be belittling him, as Bush did so successfully to Kerry. It shouldn't be hard: everything about Romney's record, and everything about Romney, speaks of a man who embodies the worst qualities of the political breed: spinelessness and superficiality. He is a man who has - as Christopher Hitchens once said of Al Gore - placed his self-respect into a blind trust.

Yet by concentrating fire on his record at Bain, the Obama team risk fixing Romney in the public mind as a businessman rather than a politician - which is exactly what Romney wants them to think too.

"legitimate rape"

Todd Akin is a Missouri congressman and Senate candidate. And obviously a fuckwit of epic proportion.

I'm not sure what he meant, or even whether he knows what he meant. Bafflingly, wondrously stupid.

More on the story here.

UPDATE: The silver lining is that he's gone from being favourite to take that Senate seat to, er, not favourite.

UPDATE ii: The Guardian has a fascinating piece on the (literally) medieval thinking behind Akin's statement.

paul ryan and shirts

For some reason this doesn't happen when you Google "Joe Biden":

On the other hand, perhaps it's just a fashion tip.

the wizard

This may explain how he got Romney to choose Ryan.

the meaning of paul ryan

Photograph: Kamil Krzaczynski/EPAP

Now that the dust has settled just a little, it's possible to draw some lines in it.

Ryan's entry marks the start of the general election (at least for the media). So far it's been a dull old election year, certainly by comparison with 2008. The polls have been deadlocked, with Obama hanging on to a very narrow lead. Romney has said or done very little of any interest, apparently happy to wait for the economy to deteriorate and for the electorate to wake up and blame the incumbent. Much of the action - certainly, the spending - has been taking place under the radar in swing states. Other than the occasional skirmish there have been no major flash-points.

Well, things just got interesting. Romney's choice of VP brings this contest to life. Superficially, the effect is similar to that of John McCain's pick of Palin in 2008 - VP pick as big, controversial and galvanising event. But underneath that, it's different, and more important.

McCain's choice generated masses of publicity but didn't fundamentally change the race, because Palin, for all her pizazz, was an empty vessel in political terms. Romney's, however, represents a profound strategic decision (whether he views it that way or not). It changes the direction of his campaign, and thus the shape of the election.

Paul Ryan is different from Palin, and just about every previous VP pick, because he brings a whole political platform with him. He has spent years developing his "Roadmap for America", a comprehensive fiscal programme, and marketing it - with enormous success - to his party. Such was Ryan's success in getting his party to endorse the Roadmap that Romney was already tied to it by proxy even before he chose his running mate.

Prior to Ryan, the Democrats were hoping to pin the Roadmap on Romney, because it includes sweeping cuts to welfare programmes that are very popular with a lot of voters, including seniors, who tend to turn up and vote. The Obama campaign can hardly believe Romney has effectively said, "No, please, allow me," and pinned it on himself.

So why did Romney do it? I think there are two likely reasons, not mutually exclusive. The first is strategic. Romney may have come to feel that his existing gameplan - sit tight and wait for something to turn down - wasn't going to do it. He felt he needed to be bolder, and choosing Ryan is nothing if not bold. Second, he seems to feel vastly more at ease with Ryan than any other potential candidate for the role. They've spent quite a bit of time together over the past year and every account of their relationship emphasises its warmth.

It's not hard to see why: they're both highly driven, data-hungry policy geeks (you can imagine a less ideological version of Ryan working for Romney at Bain) with large, sprawling families. Ryan has more of a passion for political philosophy than Romney, who thinks of himself as a pragmatic problem-solver, and despite talk of a 'father-son' relationship I have a feeling that Romney sees Ryan as his political and policy mentor rather than the other way around. (This is of course an oddity in itself - the ideologue is traditionally top of the ticket, the fixer his deputy. As I've remarked, Romney is essentially hiring a political vision, the very act of which demeans him.)

Will it work? Let's put it this way: the downside risks are much larger than the upside ones, as even most experienced Republicans recognise. For it to work, the normal rules of politics will have to be turned upside down, and in particular the rule that says you don't go into an election threatening to cut the benefits of your most important voters (click here to see what I mean). Perhaps such voters will see the light and revolt en masse against big government, sacrificing their own comforts in the process. Or, you know, not.

The fundamental problem for the Republicans is summed up nicely by the perspicacious conservative commentator David Frum: "Romney has transformed a campaign about jobs and growth into a campaign about entitlements and Medicare." By choosing Ryan, Romney has shifted the campaign on to the home turf of the Democrats, and away from his own natural territory - and Obama's biggest vulnerability - the economy.

Romney and Ryan are two clever men. But this decision is likely to prove, in the terms of James Carville's legendary motto, stupid.

(Ross Douthat, another sane conservative pundit - there are a few - has a thoughtful take on Romney-Ryan, worth reading.)

next stop rio

Stratford station this morning (via @tombarton )

Last night was a brilliantly fun, splashy and silly end to an amazing and moving two weeks.

The weather forecast for the next week is awful. Was it all a dream?

"I sold my jacket to buy you a tie!" "I sold my tie to buy you a jacket!"

Photo: Win Mcnamee/Getty

Just a couple of regular guys, on a battleship.

the outsourced candidacy

The Paul Ryan rumours really caught alight a couple of days ago when Mitt Romney gave an interview to NBC in which, in response to a question about his veep pick, he said:

"I expect to have someone with a vision for the country, that adds something to the political discourse about the direction of the country."

That "vision for the country" phrase pointed to Ryan. After all, Rob Portman, the safe-but-dull option, could hardly be said to be a visionary. Whereas Ryan - well, he's all vision (it's reality that may cause him - and Romney - problems).

Most striking about this exchange, of course, is what it says about Romney. It suggests that, like George Bush Snr., Romney doesn't do "the vision thing" - but he knows a man who does.

Staying true to his business philosophy, Romney is outsourcing his own candidacy. Having been accused by his own side of lacking all conviction, he has purchased some. I wonder who he'll pick to make his speech at the convention, or to debate with Obama.

The Republican right (that is, the Republican Party) never really wanted Romney to be their standard-bearer. Happily, it turns out that Romney agrees with them.

Conservatives are delighted. This is from the New York Times today:

Grover Norquist, the Republican strategist who heads Americans for Tax Reform, said in an interview that he did not expect Mr. Romney to lead as president. He just wants him to sign the bills that put Mr. Ryan’s vision into practice.

I'm sure Romney can find someone else to do the actual signing.

marbury's bbc medal ceremony

I'm far from the first to say it, but it bears repeating: the BBC's coverage of the Olympics has been amazing.

First, the sheer breadth and scale of it. By using BBC1, 2, 3, the red button and online, the corporation ensured that not a second wasn't broadcast live - and of course, if you missed it, it was easy to find in your own time. The online operation, in particular, is a marvel, a treasure house of user-friendly gems. For example, have you ever clicked on those little yellow boxes in the bottom right of the frame? The things you can do!

Second, the camera work. The BBC was one of the unsung stars of the opening ceremony. Its cameras gave us the spectacle from the ground up and the inside out, showing us the gleam in Kenneth Branagh's eye as well as the more traditional panoramic shots. And not a camera in sight. All the rubbish stuff - cutting away from Murray as he hugged his mother - is the OBS's fault.

Third, and most importantly, the presenting. I'm about to review some of the presenters and yes, snark will ensue, but the overall standard has been excellent. When it works, the formula is simple: give people who know what they're talking about the opportunity to talk about it. That's it. Someone with genuine knowledge and the ability to bring that alive for people - there's nothing better than that. You don't need Fearne Cotton. Just pick the right presenters, trust them, and trust in the viewers.

But now, the moment that the whole of the BBC, indeed the whole country, has been waiting for: Marbury's medal ceremony.

BRONZE

Gary Lineker. Look, it's a tough gig, being the anchor. You're meant to have a passing knowledge of every sport. You have to embody the nation's emotions: pride, disappointment, delight. You must convey authority and gravitas. Lineker has done OK, I think. But it's funny how, away from his Match of the Day habitat, his weaknesses show up. That low-key charm can come across as apathy. In fact, he often just seems exhausted. When he strains to convey passion - well, you can see the strain. I think he's great on MOTD but on the grander, more emotional stage of the Olympics, he's underpowered and a little dim, like an energy-saving lightbulb.

John McEnroe. Lucky to be on the podium at all, actually. Yes he can be charming and funny, and I love him at Wimbledon. But the BBC, by using him so much, was neglecting the formula outlined above. The guy knows next to nothing about most of the sports he was being asked to comment on. It showed.

SILVER

Gabby Logan. Logan works hard. You can tell she's been up at 6am for the last two years, rain or shine, practicing her her interview technique, her segues, her knowledge of the Hungarian synchronised swimming team, her fun mum dancing. Logan has been clearly been working particularly hard on what's been, in the past, the weakest part of her game - her humanity. She's now actually pretty convincing as a chatty, funny, almost warm personality, as well as being super-controlled and knowledgeable. So really the only thing separating her from a gold medal has been the fact that she sometimes tries to show off her homework a little too much. Plus, that 'Gold' routine sets my teeth on edge.

Denise Lewis. Passionate, emotionally involved and eloquent. What brought her up short from a gold was a lack of really crunchy insights about the action. I rarely felt like I was learning stuff from Lewis. But I always enjoyed watching her.

GOLD

Clare Balding. OK, everyone has said this, but again, it can hardly be said enough. She's the tops, she's the Orbit tower, she's Bolt and Phelps and David Rudisha. Balding has the rare ability to seem like a fan and an expert at the same time. She seems excited about what's going on - which makes you excited - but never forgets she's the anchor and has a responsibility to bring pace and narrative to the discussion. She brings the best out of her guests because she's intensely curious about the details of whatever sport she's covering (mainly swimming in this case) and because she takes delight in people. I tip her to anchor the BBC's coverage of Rio.

Ian Thorpe. The breakaway star of the first week, Thorpe was smart, incisive, brilliantly funny and yet deeply serious about his sport. We'll need to run the stats, but his insight-to-words ratio may have been the best of the Games.

Steve Cram. That soft Geordie lilt makes watching the middle distance runners even more pleasurable that it would be otherwise. Of course, he really knows whereof he speaks, so when he gets truly excited - as he did after Rudisha's world record - it gets the viewers excited. Not many ex-athletes seem as at ease with themselves as Cram does. He exudes decency, dignity and a mild, teasing humour.

Michael Johnson. The King. Almost as good at punditry as he was on the track. Highly intelligent, brimming with confidence, he will tell you things about a race you've just seen that will make you see it completely differently. He makes Colin Jackson seem like a child and shows him up as the insight-free chatterer that he is. Johnson can do banter. But underneath it all, this is a serious guy. He says, look at this - and you look, and you see something new.

All The Specialist Commentators. These guys, who know everything about gymnastics or volleyball or judo and who are so involved in their chosen sport that they can carried away with emotion at climactic points, are brilliant. After this weekend, of course, they must return to cryogenic deep freeze. Marbury looks forward to hearing from them again in 2016.

school is cool

A young girl pictured in a classroom in Herat, Afghanistan, in June of 2010. If there ever was a face of hope for the future, the new educated generation of young girls. They comprehend the chance they have been given more than we can ever imagine, they know it was a chance denied their mother's. © Martin Middlebrook.

This is from a wonderful collection of Martin Middlebrook's photographs from Afghanistan, entitled "Faces of Hope" (the grammatically dubious caption above is his).

the one per cent

Photograph: Anja Niedringhaus/AP

As Boris Johnson pointed out last week, the Olympic Games are elitist. The athletes who get to compete in this tournament are there because they are the best in the world. The medals are awarded to the best of the best. Despite being Greek in origin, the Games are no place for democracy.

We don't mind this kind of elitism - in fact we celebrate it - because we know it's earned. We know that the athletes have fought their place to the top of the pile by virtue of relentless dedication and hard slog. Beneath the podium there is a vast underworld, peopled by cyclists up at 6am on Christmas Day to do their daily twenty miles; runners, far from their families, pounding mountain tracks alone; rowers repeating the same stroke over and over while their coach shouts at them and their muscles scream.

But there is another kind of elitism at work in athletic (and artistic) success: genius, the magic that is left over after you subtract all of that awesome effort. In fact, paradoxically, effortlessness is what precisely we admire about it, as Marina Hyde points out today. While we are moved by striving, we fall in love with seemingly superhuman genius.

It's why we respect Blake, but delight in Bolt. It's why Roger Federer will always be the greatest. It's why Michael Phelps exists on a different plane to everyone else (someone remarked the other day that now he's performed in his last competitive race, he can be released back into the sea).

It's become a truism that the supremely successful aren't just born lucky, but make their own success. They put in their 10,000 hours. This story is comforting because it reassures us that beneath the elitism there is a democratic principle at work. And of course, it's true - it's a truism - that genius is 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration.

But the 1% matters.

the yellow pudding principle

Photo: Getty.

Charles van Commenee has been the head of UK athletics coaching since Beijing, and one of its most influential figures for longer (Denise Lewis credits him with making her an Olympic champion). He's been making headlines in the last couple of weeks for the slightly bewildering tenacity with which he's been publicly castigating one of Team GB's medal hopes, Phillips Idowu.

But then, as this terrific profile of the man makes clear, van Commenee is a difficult, unpredictable, driven character who inspires love, hate and fear among those who work with or for him.

Most importantly, he's a brilliant, highly demanding coach who by all accounts has raised the standards of British athletics across the board in the relatively short time he's been in charge. Sometimes it takes somebody like van Commenee - an outsider who is willing to upset people - to shake up an organisation.

Anyway, the whole thing is worth reading, but I enjoyed this particularly:

Fuzz Ahmed, the former actor who has become UKA’s high jump coach and mentor of medal hope Robbie Grabarz, knows how tough it could be with Van Commenee. “Sometimes, he’s pissed me off beyond belief. I’d have that guy sit in a chair in the middle of my training sessions and critique them harder than any theatre director I’ve ever worked with to the point where I was a gibbering wreck. And you know what? It made me a better coach.”

Once, after a major row, Van Commenee told Ahmed before a clear-the-air lunch he was too garrulous, that he needed to say less in his coaching sessions. “Then he went quiet over lunch and I thought 'God, he’s angry, he’s going to fire me’. We ordered dessert in silence and at the end of the meal, he just leant across as I was finishing my tiramisu and said: 'Ah, Fuzz yellow pudding.’ I thought he’d gone off his trolley. Then he added: 'Now you will never forget this lunch, because the only thing I’ve really said to you is 'yellow pudding’. You really don’t have to say so much, you know.’ He was right, of course.”