Michael Portillo is now out of the running for leader of the Conservative Party. He came third in the latest ballot of Tory MPs – leaving big-government Europhile Ken Clarke and hardline rightist Iain Duncan Smith as the two candidates to face the Tory activist electorate. The final result won’t emerge till September 12. Portillo lost because, in the final analysis, his social liberalism was too much for the party to stomach. Homophobia thrived. Duncan Smith’s supporters argued that Tories wanted a “family man” and a “normal” person to head the party. The Daily Telegraph described Portillo as “actorly.” Portillo’s open-minded stand on marijuana legalization and same-sex marriage was used against him. So now the Tories have a choice between one man – Duncan Smith – who makes William Hague look charismatic and liberal, and Ken Clarke – an avuncular, reassuring figure who is an enthusiast for British membership of the euro, the one issue on which the Tories still have an advantage over Labour. The fact that Clarke won over the more conservative-leaning parliamentary party shows that the Tories, as ever, don’t give a damn what they really stand for if they can get elected. But Clarke’s emergence could either be an amazingly counter-intuitive way to get the party’s European divisions behind it – or, in the nightmare scenario, split the party and destroy it for a generation. Much now depends on how Clarke handles this amazing victory. But William Hague is looking better with each passing day.
EMAIL OF THE DAY: “Couldn’t agree with you more on your comments regarding the Times being on the “razor’s edge of credibility.” I would label myself as a fiscally conservative, culturally moderate, Southern White Male. I’m comforted and encouraged by what seems to me to be George W. Bush’s over-arching decency, and shudder deeply at the thought of Al Gore in the White House.
I’ve lived in Westchester, New York for the last 5 years, and have subscribed to the NYT for that entire time; it has always seemed an “important” paper to me, perhaps THE important US paper–and, even when I disagreed with it, I at least felt challenged by the thought and hard work that had obviously gone into the editorial product. I’ve tried to never be a knee-jerk conservative, I don’t mind having my beliefs challenged, and I always felt I could at least count on the Times for a well-done, coherent and . . . responsible statement of its beliefs and positions.
Not anymore. The current editorial page seems mindless, knee-jerk (Bush “bad,” anti-Bush “good), and frankly contortionist in its efforts to slant everything . . . EVERYTHING . . . against Bush and all Republicans. And, more than ever, this slant has moved full-scale into its reporting. It’s no longer even camouflaged. It’s sad . . . but will almost certainly mean good things for other honest, balanced voices, as interested citizens like me look for meaningful, useful content and comment about the things that interest us.”
The Dish 