Liberal Burblings

If you wish, you can see Paul Staines and Harry Cole enjoying champagne while bragging about various betting organisations who are no doubt indebted to them.

I can’t remember such a dramatic moment when a cabinet minister’s future hangs in the balance, as this morning and the DPP’s announcement.

At the bottom of it all is a human story which has an element of Greek tragedy to it.

I don’t want to say anything that would prejudice a fair trial. But one does wonder whether Vicky Pryce may now be regretting talking (presumably freely) to her friend at the Sunday Times.

Even a candidate for the most lowly local public role would know not to say things like “I like firing people”.

When you’re candidate to be President of the United States you’d expect such words not to leave your lips.

Except Mitt Romney has an uncanny habit of saying things – like the firing quote above – which awkwardly fit the picture his opponents want to paint of him.

This week he said “I’m not concerned about the very poor”.

This from a candidate fighting the image of someone who made money out of firing people and lives a life of luxury including having his shoes shined by someone (not), and who is beastly to his dog.

It beggars belief that he would stumble into such a bear trap. It wasn’t as if he was under pressure from a US Paxo equivalent. These things come out from him when he is under the least pressure. It’s extraordinary.

OK. Each of Romney’s gaffes can be explained and put into context, and they then sound reasonable. The shoe shine was a mandatory shoe inspection by the air safety people. The dog was “in an airtight kennel” on the roof of his car (airtight?!). But in these days of video mash-ups it’s remarkable that Romney is so careless with his words.

Hilarious compilation from BuzzFeed - hat-tip Political Wire:

Have a listen to Mitt Romney’s victory speech from Florida – at about 1’20″ he has his soundbite:

A competitive primary does not divide us, it prepares us and we will win.

What I find interesting is that he delivered that line in the most clipped, brisk, unemphatic way. He’s talking like a North-East professor. There’s no real punch, no real fire. This is not tub-thumping, fire-in-the-belly stuff. It’s a nit-picky, bureaucratic, anally-retentive cadence.

Er? Wasn’t that meant to be Obama?

Compare Romney’s rather clipped, buttock-clenched delivery with Obama’s recent State of the Union address. I thought that was quite remarkable for the change in Obama’s manner of speaking. Gone are the thoughtful, measured tones of the past that got him likened to a professor. Instead, we heard the vigorous, very American, commanding, knockabout tones. It was real “street-fighting” stuff.

I think Americans will notice this contrast between the two Presidential protagonists for this November. Perhaps unconsciously – but I think they will warm further to Obama and be rather repelled by Romney.

…A very comprehensive review from Mark Kermode on Simon Mayo’s Five Live show.