Cameron's “sizzle” and “substance”

Irwin Stelzer, Murdoch’s man from across the pond, puts James Macintyre in his place following the New Statesman nonsense:

Ask instead whether it is reasonable to assume that super-cautious Obama, a lawyer without an impetuous bone in his body, is likely to have derided a man with whom he might have to do business for years to come. The answer is that Obama is as likely to have shared that thought with Cameron's political opponents as Thomas More was to have told Richard Rich of his opposition to Henry VIII's divorce.

Stelzer then proceeds to explain why Obama does indeed believe Cameron has substance:

But we do know that the president, who had no obligation to do so and who is enough of a politician to know that a meeting would be a big plus for a politician new on the world scene, chose to meet with Cameron during his visit to Britain for the G20 meeting in April – privately, at Winfield House, the Regent Park residence of the US ambassador. If this were merely a drive-by hello, Obama would not have brought with him secretary of state Hillary Clinton, national security adviser General Jim Jones, treasury secretary Tim Geithner and deputy chief of staff Jim Messina.

He concludes:

But he [Obama] has now made the war in Afghanistan his own, and needs Britain to step up its effort there, needs Britain to co-ordinate its new scheme for the regulation of financial dealings with his own, and knows that the two countries' security services are heavily dependent on one another. That requires substance, not sizzle. Brown has it, and so does Cameron.

Precisely the point and it is significant that Stelzer, being close to Murdoch, has decided to rebut Macintyre’s allegations.  It surely will not be long before Murdoch's papers come out and official endorse Cameron.

Macintyre’s article in the New Statesman and the PM4PM campaign have much in common.  They are both as silly as each other.