CentreRight

Despite Ben Rogers' advocacy of a Condoleeza Rice nomination as Republican VP on CentreRight yesterday, there is zero prospect that this will happen. As my Henry Jackson Society colleague Timothy Stafford pointed out in an excellent article last week, Rice blew her chances some time ago because of the disconnect between what she purports to believe in and what her actions have belied.

However, one news story rapidly gaining prominence Stateside at present is that John McCain is strongly considering Virginia Congressman Eric Cantor for his VP pick. A slew of reports led by the Associated Press, and quickly seized upon by other sources which provide additional background, indicate that McCain has called in Cantor's papers for vetting.

What is particularly incredible about this is that Cantor - a virtual unknown outside of the US despite being the Deputy Whip in the House - has only come to prominence as a possible candidate in the last few weeks, perhaps indicating Republican frustration with the selections hitherto being considered such as Mitt Romney, Rob Portman, Bobby Jindal (whose star has dimmed because of flip-flopping problems in Louisiana) and Tom Ridge.

Certainly Cantor ticks a number of key boxes regarded as essential for a McCain VP: he's young, a traditional conservative, noted as an excellent fund-raiser and from a key state which analysts have suggested could fall into the Democrat column for the first time since 1964. The internet campaign for his candidature has also raised eyebrows given its novelty, and with Barack Obama widely perceived as having whipped the McCain campaign online, the Cantor support base might also help rejuvenate the Republican web campaign strategy. 

With Barrack Obama also considering  a Virginia option in the form of Governor Tim Kaine, could the Old Dominion end up in the unlikely position of providing both VP picks?

Hot on the heels of the indictment for genocide of Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir by the International Criminal Court (ICC), comes last night's welcome news that Europe's most wanted man, the odious Radovan Karadžić, has finally been arrested in Serbia after more than a decade on the run.

The first half of the last decade was dominated internationally by the ongoing crisis in the former Yugoslavia, with the aggressive Serbian nationalism of Slobodan Milošević inspiring the break-up of that multi-ethnic federation and its descent into war and chaos. Karadžić played the willing stooge in Bosnia, whipping up the Bosnian Serb population into a ferment of hatred towards their neighbours in what had always been the most ethnically integrated of all the Yugoslav republics.

For three years, this former psychiatrist and amateur poet symbolised the banality of evil on our television screens, preening himself on the international stage while his forces murdered, raped and tortured their way across the shattered country. While Sarajevo lay under medieval siege and genocide was conducted in Srebrenica, the international community sat by and watched, with our Conservative government shamefully in the vanguard of attempts to prevent international intervention to stop the ethnic cleansing of the Bosnian  Muslims.  Indeed, it was partly in reaction to the appalling international performance in Bosnia that a new generation of 'liberal interventionists' came to the fore on both sides of the Atlantic, determined to place human rights concerns at the strategic level of foreign policy discourse.

Yet another example of foolishness within the healthcare sector has been highlighted through this story on surgeons being offered bonuses by a hospital trust for successful operations. Although the trust concerned has been careful to suggest this will only apply to specific procedures where outcomes can be easily measured, this sends completely the wrong message to both surgeons and their patients about the value and importance of their work. The government is of course refusing to take a position on the trust's scheme, other than to say that it is not official government policy.

The purpose of incentivisation, when properly applied, is to spur the recipient into stretching their performance boundaries to greater heights. Quite frankly, if a surgeon is not already performing to the highest standard possible, they should be removed from their position. This is not a sector such as finance, where the non-maximisation of revenue merely means an institution will walk away with smaller profits. If surgeons are not doing their jobs properly, it is their patients who will suffer real physical consequences. Equally, it stands to reason that no matter how principled the person concerned, if a system of incentivisation starts appearing, it will become far more tempting to perform those operations that yield the best chance of income augmentation (i.e. the 'low hanging fruit') to the detriment of more difficult procedures that do not.

I am sure that both surgeons and patients will not welcome this implied assault on surgeons' current performance as well as the implication that a fistful of pounds will make a huge difference to the service they provide. If you want healthcare to operate more like the free market, I'm fine with that. But let's not waste taxpayers' money tinkering around the edges and paying people to do the jobs they already do to the highest standard possible.

Regarding Tim's post below, the New York Times politics blog has a couple of updates on the story including a partial retraction from a spokesman for Mr Maliki.

It now seems that his comments had been “as not conveyed accurately regarding the vision of Senator Barack Obama, U.S. presidential candidate, on the timeframe for U.S. forces withdrawal from Iraq,” although the language of the statement is so convoluted that it is difficult to see exactly what the Iraqi PM is actually objecting to, or trying to say.

So far - and quite understandably - the debate on the Zimbabwe elections here is focusing on the run-up to the poll itself and attempts to ensure that some form of free and fair poll occurs. But what if, as seems likely, the election is indeed rigged in Robert Mugabe's favour? What should the response of the international community be?

Now that Barack Obama has been confirmed as the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, The New York Times - of all places - has drawn attention to the very real possibility that he is the likely heir to the American unilateralism so hated by US liberals and Europeans. With free trade rather than foreign policy acting as his battle ground of choice.

Who says that democracy is unsuited to certain geographical areas of the world? An interesting piece in the Financial Times focusing on the Mauritius elections begs to differ.

As opposition leader Paul Bérenger points out, “Four times since independence [in 1968], the government of the day was thrown out in general elections. Three times it won. Then again I suppose it’s not that special. After five years [of one government] people want a new dream.”

Dedicated fans of the West Wing will of course recall the culmination of the iconic series in a presidential battle between a young, charming and inexperienced Democrat and an older, maverick, independent Republican unbeloved of his party's base. Remind you of anything we might be seeing shortly?

Jonathan Freedland has now uncovered in The Guardian that rather than life imitating art, it may actually have been the other way round, with Barack Obama's office providing the inspiration for the Jimmy Smits/Matt Santos character. We all knew Hollywood's liberal bias, but this takes subliminal to a whole new level!

When will Americans start to wake up to the reality that Barack Obama is all - admittedly seductive - style and no substance? For those still entranced by the rhetoric, an eye-opening exchange between Obama supporter Kirk Watson and MSNBC's Chris Matthews should do the trick. Painful.

It's probably too late for Hilary of course, but expect the McCain campaign to be sharpening the knives...

Douglas, to continue our most civilised debate (perhaps the presidential contenders could learn from our example?), I have four points to make: on Geroge Bush, issue differences, overall context of political control and the dangers of party infighting. 

Here you go Douglas: a coherent defence of McCain for those conservatives still in denial.

Personally, the loathing some Republicans have for him reminds me of the dog days of the Major administration. And we all remember what happened to us once we started tearing ourselves apart. Clue: ten years of Labour misrule and counting...

Sam, you raise an excellent general point about transatlantic think-tank funding disparities, but if you are including bodies such as CFR, CSIS and Brookings on the US side, it is only fair to also count the British equivalents of IISS (£7 million), Chatham House (£6.2 million)  and RUSI (£2.8 million). On the success, or not, of the two 'biggest beasts' in raising money see this Bronwen Maddox article from last year.

These additions do not change the fact that the British think-tank market is woefully underfunded (declaration of interest: I run a think-tank). While tax laws account for part of the difference with the USA, a bigger problem is the difference of philanthropic spirit between the two countries and the lack of understanding here of how think-tanks can help shape the battle of ideas.

The BBC has given some good coverage to the Human Rights Watch annual report. This quite rightly slams the US and European countries for an increasing tendency to tolerate autocrats "claiming the mantle of democracy" by the holding of elections, while not pressing "governments on the key human rights issues that make democracy function - a free press, peaceful assembly, and a functioning civil society that can really challenge power." HRW blames strategic and commercial calculations for this slippage.

We in Britain are of course not immune to this charge, having recently disgraced ourselves in our fawning admiration of those noted paragons of virtue, Saudi Arabia and China. No doubt when the Pakistani election generates a 'victory' for some form of pro-Musharraf coalition - but which will leave him in control of the country - we will applaud that too.

Coming hot on the heels of Freedom House's conclusion that freedom is on the retreat around the world, 2008 has got off to a depressing start. With Russia's sham presidential election looming, expect the trend to continue.

I think that I had best spare Tim the pain of hearing the news from the hostile mouth of the BBC that his prediction of the demise of his champion Rudy Giuliani has come to pass. Word is streaming through thick and fast on all the US newswires that John McCain has clinched the Florida vote, with Mitt Romney second and Giuliani a distant third. And I, for one, am delighted.

As Tim (and other Giulianites such as Douglas Murray and Nile Gardiner) can testify, I have been a McCainiac since his 2008 campaign was but a glint in the eye. Perhaps unsurprising really as the Patrons list of the Henry Jackson Society is top-heavy with McCain foreign policy advisers. I watched in horror as his campaign imploded last summer, sat there more in hope than expectation through the autumn (I'll admit that I thought he was out of it but stayed loyal to the cause in glum desperation) and then slowly once again dared to believe that he could triumph in the winter. And now revel in the prospect that he will surge through in the spring.

Are the Democrats beginning to blow their assumed advantage in the presidential election? As the fallout from Monday's rancorous presidential debate in South Carolina intensifies, The Guardian has a timely analysis about the spin and counter-spin being employed by the Clinton and Obama campaigns. Citing that the latest exchanges yesterday have brought "what has become a mean-spirited and negative campaign to a new low", the underlying tone implies concern on the Left that Clinton and Obama may cause so much damage in their nomination battle that a Republican could yet win the Presidency.

It's an interesting thought, as 'conventional wisdom' has suggested that it will be a Democrat year. We'll know more after the Republican Florida primary, but if John McCain or Rudy Giuliani triumph there, the Republicans will likely have a candidate after Super-Duper Tuesday whereas the Democrats may still be trapped in bitter deadlock. 

And so adieu to Fred Thompson from the Republican Presidential race. You came, you saw, you left in the manner that you had campaigned in. Quietly, and without much fanfare.

Your campaign was an abject lesson in the adage that timing is everything in politics. Your conservative voting record while in the Senate, and TV star credentials, had propelled you to opinion poll leads by early summer 2007. Yet you dawdled on making the decision to enter the race until all the momentum had drained away from behind you. In retrospect, it is pretty damning that you excited more coverage in that long, protracted and drawn out process than when you actually got going. 

Hero of the day is Edward McMillan-Scott MEP, for accusing Gordon Brown of "humbug" for his inconsistent foreign policy stance on human rights violations. When weak countries such as Zimbabwe practise human rights abuses, Britain is quite rightly in the fore of criticism against them. But when the strong, such as China, or those with resources we covet, such as Saudi Arabia, are the offenders, a stony silence emanates from Downing Street and King Charles Street.

If sporting sanctions are appropriate for use against Zimbabwe, they should also be applied to this summer's Olympics in Beijing. I for one would back this. In case you need reminding why China is a problem, over to Mr McMillan-Scott:    "It is time for the civilised world to wake up to what is really   happening in the hidden China, a terror state like no other, which has   killed some 80 million of its own people since 1949"

Memo to Gordon: Try and develop some consistency in advocating a line and then sticking to it. Or if not, at least have the intellectual honesty to admit openly that you are applying double standards, and that human rights are not, in fact, central to your foreign policy.

An unusual turn in the Mitt Romney presidential campaign has been playing across US TV screens today. Romney, who has presented himself as being a Washington outsider not beholden to lobbying special interests, got into a verbal duel with a reporter in South Carolina about whether lobbyists ran, or merely advised, his campaign. Romney claimed the latter while the reporter suggested the former was a more accurate description given the importance of one Ron Kaufman to his campaign.

Having abruptly ended the press conference, the candidate and his press director evidently couldn't let the matter lie: instead of walking away, they took the bizarre decision to continue the spat with the journalist. Of course, the cameras were still running, and Fox's Embed blog has the full story and video here.

Jill has suggested that we might label her 'unfeeling' for her thoughts on the Russian threats against British Council offices. I would think 'naive' might be more appropriate.

Whatever your views on the British Council, Neil Kinnock or Kinnock Jr, this isn't a question about taxation but about the ever diminishing freedom and liberty in Putin's police-state Russia. Russia is now in the grip of an increasingly authoritarian and paranoid state that not only crushes domestic opposition to Putin but turns its fire on internationally recognised NGOs without any cause or provocation. Don't take my word for it. Read the findings from Freedom House's Freedom in the World 2008 Survey yourself.

I'm sorry to say that by belittling the British government's tough stance on the matter, Jill is merely playing Moscow's game.

Three cheers to Conservative MP Tim Yeo, who in this post on the Guardian’s Comment is Free site, explains why he is once again championing the cause of extra daylight savings time all year round through a private members bill.

Yeo has been drawn near the top of the ballot for the second year running, and is proposing a three year experiment to make evenings lighter by putting Britain on Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) plus one hour in winter (the equivalent of British Summer Time), and GMT plus two hours in summer. Darker mornings a few weeks in the year in winter, when most people are going to work, would be offset by precious daylight at the end of the day, when they could enjoy it.

So far pretty much ignored by the British political blogosphere – although that’s probably because it’s only out in cinemas here later today – the film Charlie Wilson's War bears close examination. Both for its tale of personal conviction in politics and for its reminder in this age of war in Afghanistan and Iraq  that interventionism is capable of yielding the most spectacular results.

For those who haven’t read the book of the same name, this true story recounts the tale of how a Democratic Congressman of dubious personal habits – the self-same Charlie Wilson – rises above a somewhat mediocre political existence in 1980 to champion the cause of the Afghan rebels fighting to defend their country from Soviet invasion.