Thanks for playing, Rudy...

Last night's primary in Florida proved to be an enormous disappointment for former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Largely ignoring the earlier primaries and caucuses in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, the Brooklyn-born Republican had placed all his eggs in one basket.

He had hoped the large number of former-New Yorkers sunning themselves in the Sunshine State would back his campaign for the White House and propel him into first place in one decisive victory.

Instead, he trailed in a disappointing third - barely getting half the percentage points of front-runners John McCain and Mitt Romney.

It's a huge disappointment for Rudy - who hoped his 'hero' status and the legacy of 9/11 would put him in a good position to run the country. Instead, his risky campaign strategy has pretty much blown up in his face and effectively ended his run before it really began.

In all honesty, Rudy has nobody to blame but himself.

At the start of the presidential nominations, Rudy was the clear front runner for the Republican nomination. He stood head and shoulders above the other candidates and promised to win over a lot of moderate Democrats and swing voters as well. So where did it all go wrong?

I believe it was the arrogance of his campaign. The current front-runners, like Romney and McCain, have thrown their all into the battle and are as willing to shake hands and kiss babies in seemingly unimportant states like Iowa and Wyoming as they are the 'crunch states' like Florida.

Romney and McCain have come across as earnest campaigners - putting in the 'hard graft' to get to the White House. More importantly, they've established themselves as statesmen who value the support and opinions of all Americans - not just the ones who'll vote them into office.

Rudy Giuliani made the same mistake as Fred Thompson. He looked at the campaign in a more tactical way and decided to direct his resources into several key states. If he won those, McCain and Romney's minor victories would pale into insignificance.

However, in doing so he immediately changed the public's opinion of him. No longer was he the straight talking, no-nonsense Brooklyn boy who'd fix the country's problems no matter what the cost. He'd suddenly become a cynical political animal who clearly displayed his lack of regard for middle America.

His campaign disregarded the humble people of Iowa and New Hampshire and that made normal, middle-class Americans nervous.

The idea of the American democracy is that every citizen has a voice. Rudy Giuliani illustrated that he wasn't interested in listening to that voice unless he was going to get something from it in return.

The leaders in this presidential race - Obama, McCain, Clinton and Romney - have proven that they're willing to accept and embrace the entire spectrum of American society. They're as willing to court tractor-drivers in Iowa as oil-barons in Texas. That appeals to a society based upon the mantra of 'all men are created equal.'

Blissful Ignorance

A very disturbing trend I've noticed regarding the upcoming Presidential Election is the enthusiastic embrace of ignorance.

Some people don't like the horrible truth, so they resolutely refuse to accept it - despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

I'm afraid to say it's the conservatives who are the most enthusiastically ignorant. Many conservatives claim that their refusal of rationality is a 'political choice' whereas really, it's just bloody mindedness tinged with stupidity.

The most obvious example of this is Evolution.

Many conservatives - including presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee - reject the 'theory' of Evolution. Some prefer to consider 'intelligent design' - which is a not-mutually-exclusive theory in which the development of man was overseen by some 'higher power'

But others, like Huckabee himself, prefer 'Creationist' theory. This is the belief that the world was created exactly as described in the Bible - over the course of seven days, a little more that seven thousand years ago.

The problem with this 'theory' is that it's bunkum. Utter, preposterous rubbish.

Because 'Evolution' is not just a theory. It's also a fact.

Evolution is Here to Stay

The 'theory' of Evolution was not just invented by Charles Darwin while he was in a drunken stupor aboard The Beagle. It was a theory pieced together through objective examination of the evidence.

Further research - which yielded carbon-dating figures and the bones of dinosaurs and woolly mammoths - proved conclusively that animals have changed and developed over the course of the millenia and the world is considerably more than 7,000 years old.

Now whether you believe mankind developed from monkeys via random selection or the work of some 'higher power' is up to you - but it's a fact that humanity as we know it has walked the earth for 33,000 years before the Bible claimed it did.

Evolution is only a 'theory' in the same way that gravity is a 'theory.' We theorise why a ball thrown into the air will be drawn inextricably to the ground. The fact that it happens - each and every time - is a incontrovertible fact.

So people like Huckabee - who refuse to accept concrete, inarguable facts that blow their religious dogma out of the water - are just willfully, gleefully ignorant. And is that the sort of person we want running the country?

But leaving aside Evolution - which at least has the armour of religious dogma to protect it - let's examine some of the other incontrovertible facts conservatives blissfully ignore.

Global Warming

In the past century, the temperature of the world has gone up by a little more than a single degree centigrade. This is an astonishing rise in temperature and has been linked directly to the increase of so called 'greenhouse gases' accumulating in the atmosphere since the mid 20th century.

Given the industrialisation of the world, it is estimated that the planet's temperature could rise by as much as 6 degrees centigrade in the 21st century.

The world is getting hotter. That's a fact.

Unless, of course, you're a conservative.

Because a large number of conservatives refuse to believe the 'theory' of Global Warming and the mountain of scientific evidence linking man-made greenhouse gases to the rise in temperature.

One of the major reasons to be skeptical of the 'theory' of Global Warming is because it's convenient not to believe. If Global Warming is real, we're in trouble. It will take an expensive and inconvenient revolution to transform the world's industries to be environmentally friendly.

No more gas-guzzling cars. No more smoke-churning factories. It will take research and investment and - worst of all - we might have get up off the sofa to take part in it.

So plenty of people choose to be skeptical - and the conservative right (linked to oil industry investors desperate for us not to believe in Global Warming) are happy to swallow up the cynical propaganda pumped out to keep us skeptical.

I stole this cartoon from CK's Blog and I hope he doesn't mind!

I recommend reading Wikipedia's post on the subject of Climate Change denial. It's pretty scary reading.

Is there any credibility to the Global Warming skepticism? Well the most knowledgeable person I know is a friend of mine, energy conservationist Margo Bettencourt - who says: "Denying that global warming/climate change is real is akin to saying evolution is 'just a theory'. In both cases, those who don't know how to deal with the consequences of an issue deny it's truthiness. We'd all be better off if these naysayers could accept that we came from monkeys and are changing the climate."

Margo is the dictionary definition of a 'smart cookie' and if her opinions are good enough for Colombia University and the city of New York, they easily trump any of the cynical oil-industry funded 'strategic studies groups' [Or SUV owning laymen from the midwest - Editorial Bear.]

Why so dumb?

With things like Evolution, we just have to take the scientist's word for it (the thousands of scientist's words for it, backed up with mountains of incontrovertible evidence.)

For something like Global Warming, the evidence is right there in front of us.

I was born on a snowy day in February in 1978. In recent years, England can go for years without snow appearing. The bookies have even stopped running odds on a 'white Christmas' because what was once a reasonably common occurrence has now simply ceased to happen.

In 2002, I spent Christmas day in a New York snowstorm. This Christmas, I was walking around without a jacket on. Global warming is HERE. It's a FACT and we're all living it and witnessing it with our own eyes.

It just boggles the mind why people would make a conscious decision to ignore what they see right in front of them and instead live a fantasy of political expediency.

The problem the conservatives are creating for themselves with this 'embrace of ignorance' is clear. They're pouring their credibility down the plug hole.

If somebody chooses to ignore a fact, like the parallel between greenhouse gas emissions and rising temperatures, or carbon-dating proving that rocks are millions of years old, it makes you wonder what other incontrovertible truths they're willing to ignore.

I mean, the conservatives tell us that the 'War on Terror' is helping to make America safer. It's the cornerstone of the Republican presidential campaign (have you heard the presidential nominees talk about anything else?)

But are we any safer? And can we take the conservatives' word for it, even if we are?

The economy is another issue. Most conservatives would never vote Democrat because they're the 'party of big spending and tax increases.' Yet history has illustrated through the five recent terms of Republican presidency that Elephants can't balance a chequebook.

Right now, the Republican nominees are bleating about the wonders of Reaganomics. This 'golden age' of the American economy was a balloon that got popped on Black Monday.

Reaganomics is a myth.

In reality, Ronald Reagan plunged America into three trillion dollars worth of debt. While the President delivered tax cuts to the super-rich (slashing a 70% income tax to just 28%) payroll taxes for the average working man actually increased.

His Republican successor, H.W. Bush, similarly won the election on the promise of 'no new taxes' - but reneged on his promise as soon as he'd got his expensive loafers into the Oval Office.

Yet people keep buying into the dreary dogma!

In Conclusion

The embrace of ignorance has got me deeply worried about the upcoming election.

It's a well known fact that most of America votes on blinkered party lines - it's single percentage points of 'swing voters' who make the difference and tip the scales towards a Republican or Democratic president.

But Democracy is a system vulnerable to stupid voters - and there seem to be more of them than ever!

Maybe it's because I have liberal pretensions, or I'm a writer, or I occasionally watched Will & Grace and therefore contributed to the 'pro-gay biased liberal media' or some such rubbish - but I live with a dream of an election fought through open debate, rationality and logic.

Sure, some of our reasons for picking the president are going to be illogical. Some people aren't going to vote for Hillary because she's a woman. Some people are going to vote for Mitt Romney because they mistakenly believe he's really Evil Dead actor Bruce Campbell.

But the big issues? It would be nice if policy was dictated by an objective appreciation of the facts. Unfortunately, there's a powerful movement in conservative America that would happily ignore the inconvenient 'facts' in order to embrace a much more comforting fantasy they call the 'truth.'

As historian Indiana Jones said in The Last Crusade:

"FACT."

"History is the search for fact. Not truth."

"If it's truth you're interested in, Doctor Tyree's Philosophy class is right down the hall."

McCain wins New Hampshire

The Republicans of New Hampshire have spoken - and they've backed McCain as the man to lead their party to the White House.

Nearly ten points clear of rival Mitt Romney, McCain won the state through the support of independent voters - who were attracted by his moderate policies and strength of character.

For America, this is fantastic news. McCain stands a real chance of getting the Republican nomination and if it's a battle between him and Barack Obama, America is in the blissful situation of being able to 'cherry pick' their 44th President from two excellent candidates.

Why I Back McCain

A few weeks ago, I really came to admire Arizona Senator John McCain.

It was at one of the Republican debates and McCain was in discussion with the 'usual suspects.' Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani and, of course, good old Fred Thompson.

Since Republican debates normally sink into discussion of homosexuality, abortion or 'national security,' it was no surprise that the candidates started ranting about how they were going to 'keep America safe' and what they were willing to do in order to achieve that.

And interrogation came up.

Specifically, what President Bush and the CIA euphemistically call 'enhanced interrogation techniques.' In other words, water boarding and other questioning techniques that are tantamount to torture.

Man for man, each of the Republican candidates stood firmly behind these 'enhanced interrogation techniques' and declared how important they were in keeping America safe.

“If I didn't use intensive questioning," Rudy Giuliani boasted, "there would be a lot of Mafia guys running around New York right now, and crime would be a lot higher in New York than it is.”

There was a lot of posturing, a lot of machismo and the scent of testosterone was heavy in the air. Until, that is, the question was handed to the white-haired senator from Arizona.

He flat out refused to consider 'enhanced interrogation techniques.' There was no beating around the bush. No political fluffery. Just a straight up, honest no.

"The United States is not like the terrorists," McCain explained. "What we are is a nation that upholds values and standards of behavior and treatment of all people, no matter how evil or bad they are."

For the right-wing conservatives sitting at home, the senator might have seemed to have wimped out - but as I saw it, he'd made every single Republican candidate in that debate look like a loud, bawling baby.

John McCain won my (Republican) support during that debate.

McCain in the Know

What did Senator McCain bring to that debate that none of the other candidates had? And what gave his condemnation of torture such impressive weight?

The fact that John McCain was the only one of those politicians who'd ever had first-hand experience of what they were boasting about. In August 1968, as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, McCain had been brutally tortured over the course of four long days.

Torture Garden

In July of 1968, McCain had already been a prisoner of the Viet Cong for almost a year. He was a skinny, sickly shadow of the dashing pilot who'd been behind the joystick of an A-4 Skyhawk when it was shot down during an attack on Hanoi's thermal power plant.

But he was strong willed and determined, despite long months in solitary confinement.

In fact, McCain was only selected for 'special treatment' by his captors when his father, Admiral Jack McCain Jnr, was made Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific Command.

As a good-will gesture, the Viet Cong offered to return the commander's son to American soil - but the young John McCain refused to go until every single one of the Viet Cong's prisoners captured before him were released as well.

"First in," McCain explained, repeating the Code of Conduct of the US Fighting Forces, "last out."

Angry at the defiant young airman, the Viet Cong began what would John McCain's introduction into the effects of torture.

He was tightly bound with rope - squeezing his limbs and joints into unnatural positions for days at a time. Twice hourly, guards would come into his cell and beat him with their fists and lengths of bamboo. His bones were deliberately broken. His teeth were beaten and cracked from his jaw.

John McCain always recounts that the Vietnamese were successful in breaking his spirit - but even when McCain was brutally coerced to give the names of his squadron members, he cynically gave the Viet Cong the names of the Green Bay Packer's offensive line instead.

In all, John McCain spent nearly six years as a Prisoner of War and during those years, he probably learned more about the 'art' of torture than any man should in several lifetimes.

So forty years later, it was probably with a great deal of disgust that he witnessed American politicians - possibly amongst them the man who would become the 44th President of the United States, discussing and advocating the disgusting techniques he'd so brutally experienced at the hands of the Viet Cong.

There are many other reasons why John McCain stands head and shoulders above any of the other Republican nominees - but it was his determination and strength-of-character in that debate than won him over for me.

Mitt Romney

In order to make it's caucuses politically significant, Wyoming recently moved them from February to January - and received universal condemnation from the Republicans and Democrats as a result.

In addition, their largely ignored contribution to the presidential nomination process went almost completely ignored as a result.

But if you scan the bylines of your national newspaper, you'll find that the people of Wyoming have spoken too - and stood firmly behind former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney as Republican candidate for the presidential election.

Now after my condemnation of ridiculous evangelical Mike Huckabee, you might think I'd be equally scathing about Mormon Romney. After all, he is a Mormon - and Mormonism is one of the most absurd and ridiculous religious cults of recent history.

I feel awfully guilty about writing that, because I have a friend who is a Mormon - and she's one of the most lovely, intelligent and talented people I know... If she's representative of the Mormon community as a whole, maybe we should pack our bags and move to Utah.

But we won't and we shan't.

Because while people condemn Mitt Romney for being a Mormon, you can't really blame him. Mormonism is in his blood. It was Romney's great, great Parley P. Pratt (appropriate name, as it happens) who helped found the Church of the Latter Day Saints way back in 1830. His family has been Mormon for five generations and after that long, paying lip service to to citizens of Zion makes about as much sense as kissing the Pope's pinky ring.

Here's what his opponents don't want you to know - his Mormonism isn't really a big deal.

Oh, sure, he doesn't smoke or drink - but nor does President Bush. When it comes to the big picture, though, Mitt Romney neatly avoids the normal Mormon stereotypes by not having multiple wives (actually, that was officially banned in 1890) and if he goes round knocking from door to door, it's to demand your vote rather than pass round copies of The Watchtower. [That's Jehovah's Witnesses - Editorial Bear]

He actually seems like a pretty evolved guy - much more so than creationist Mike Huckabee - who's convinced the world is only 7,000 years old and dinosaurs were just really big chickens.

That being said - do we really want Mitt Romney as our next president?

Well, I'll give the man his due. He's a fearsomely effective businessman. He managed to reverse the fortunes of sinking Bains & Company back in 1990 in less than a year - without any layoffs or partner defections. He was CEO of the 2002 Winter Olympic Games and turned a $379 million shortfall into a $100 million profit. A true fiscal conservative, as Governor of Massachusetts, he turned a $3 billion deficit into a $700 million surplus. Compare that to former governor Mike Huckabee's record in Arkansas and you can see that Mitt Romney knows how to stretch a dollar better than our evangelical friend.

He's even fairly broad minded, as far as social issues go. No friend of the common or garden gay person, he at least admits he'd back Civil Unions if the only alternative was legalised Gay Marriage. He has sensible ideas about tackling illegal immigration (when the Mormon guy starts telling you that 'the big fence' idea is dumb, it's really time to listen) and he is opposed to the use of torture in questioning terrorism suspects.

He does support the use of 'enhanced interrogation techniques' but not the use of torture. Just to make that clear.

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet..." William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet.

So all in all, he does seem to be a much better bet than Mike Huckabee.

For a start, he's likely to credit the republicans of Wyoming for his nomination, rather than Huckabee's quaint manoeuvre of thanking Jesus (who is not registered to vote.)

Plus the guy can balance a chequebook and that's a trait the Republican party has been sorely missing for the last thirty years.

But there is one ominous facet to Mitt Romney that should warn us all off backing him in the race to the White House.

He hates eggplant.

Call it eggplant, aubergine or brinjal (that's what they call it in India) this delicious potato/tomato perennial is a regular in my kitchen and if Mitt Romney doesn't like it - something ain't right.

I mean, we all know it's 'cool' to have presidentially vetoed vegetables (Bush senior hated broccoli) but eggplant is a queer choice. Yet as Mitt shamelessly admitted, he dislikes “eggplant, in any shape or form.”

Is that the kind of man we really want running this great nation?

And my final reason for doubting the follower of the late nutcase Joseph Smith Jnr is Mitt Romney's rather frightening facial similiarity to legendary horror movie actor Bruce Campbell.

Do we really want to have a man in the White House who could, at any time, be replaced with a chainsaw-weilding time traveller brandishing his 'boomstick?'

I think not...

Mitt Romney, eggplant hater and potential 44th President of the United States versus Bruce Campbell, star of Evil Dead II and Army of Darkness. Or is it the other way around?