Last night I was a panellist on a Question Time hosted by Battersea Conservatives along with Dick Tracy (GLA Member and former MP, Henley MP John Howell, Matthew Parris of The Times and chaired by Jonathan Isaby of The Daily Telegraph. It was an enjoyable event and nice to see a wide range of views on show - except I was astonished to see that a majority of the audience preferred the notion of Barack Hussein Obama as President to John McCain. The stated reason? They objected to Sarah Palin's fundamentalist views. Excuse me?Where have got this from? It won't be from anything Governor Palin has actually said - or worse, done. Her selection undoubtedly energised the GOP's conservative base without her needing to pander to it. Whereas in 2004, President Bush ran a divisive campaign on wedge issues such as abortion and gay marriage, the GOP has not done so in 2008.
So I ask again, where did my fellow Tories get this notion that Governor Palin has fundamentalist views that disqualify her from the White House from? Even John Howell MP cited them as his rationale for opposing a McCain victory. I asked Mr Howell and the audience to cite when Sarah Palin had expressed these fundamentalist views in this campaign or when she had allowed her personal views to affect her judgment as Governor of Alaska. No one could point to an example. It was apparent that, to a man, they had all formed this prejudiced view of Governor Palin thanks to successful smears of her reputation by, primarily, the damned BBC.
I recited a series of smears about Obama. That he once took drugs. That he was educated at a madrassah. That he has consorted with a self-confessed domestic terrorist. That he worshipped for 20 years in a church led by a man who called on God to damn the USA (and referred to his own nation as the US of KKK). That he donated $800,000 to a supposed charity that is now under FBI investigation for electoral fraud. That he was the attorney and then Chief Executive of that same supposed charity.
Except none of those are smears. They are all factually accurate - unlike the BBC smear that Governor Palin is some kind of religious zealot who wants to turn the US into some kind of religious state (as if she is the Totty Taliban) if she becomes Vice-President or President.
Last night showed how, yet again, the BBC's institutional (and no longer remotely unsubtle) leftist bias has a pervasive and dangerous effect on political discourse in Britain. While some in the audience may have been sincere in their desire for the high-taxing Obama to win (which begs the question why they're Tories in the first place), others perhaps wanted an Obama victory out of a misguided and politically correct desire to be seen as being "right on" by endorsing a black President (despite his lack of Executive experience, shady criminal past, dangerous Iraq policy, naive foreign policies, big government spending programmes and liberal voting record). All conceded readily that McCain is very well qualified to be President. If only they'd taken the time to make their own enquiries as to Sarah Palin's strong qualification to be Vice-President.
16 comments:
It does go to show, though, that there are differences between the USA and the UK and between the Tories and the GOP. I think one of them is not so much the role of religion so much as how it is displayed.
With regard to Gov. Palin's fundamentalism, you could look at her anointing for protection from witchcraft, her belief that the US' presence in Iraq and the Trans-Alaska pipeline are a mission from God.
I think that your position about Bill Ayers is a little unfair. You have not, to my knowledge, critcised Patrick Sheahan, Executive Director, Public Affairs for UBS, for sitting on the board of the Woods Fund with Ayers or, indeed, other people in public life who have had dealings with Ayers from the Dems and the GOP.
I don't see the particular relevance of whether Obama attended a madrassah or not. Perhaps you'd like to tell us the name of the madrassah? I was rather under the impression that he'd attended St Francis of Assisi school and State Elementary School Menteng 01 in Jakarta before going to Punahou School in Honolulu.
As to not pursuing wedge issues; I'd suggest that the campaign for McCain (even if not directly endorsed by him or the campaign machine) has pursued a rather large wedge issue - race. Rather than going after his Kenyan heritage - which would be just too crude - people have been trying to give him the opprobrium of a connection to Islam. Constantly drawing attention to Obama's middle name - Hussein - and the nonsense about his having attended an Islamic school are a couple of examples.
I am not saying, by any stretch of the imagination, that Obama is a perfect candidate. It is also true that Palin has done much to energise the GOP base. However, to suggest that the Tories have been brainwashed by the BBC into backing Barack is as false as to say that Palin would be mainstream in the UK.
it needed saying and you said it well.
Dave: did you even read the story you linked to about witchcraft? It was exposed as a fake!
Moreover everything we do should be God's will - that is, at least, what any Christian believes. THY will be done. Thus her prayer that what the US is doing is God's will.
Here's the video of Palin being protected from witchcraft. Where's your evidence that this is a fake?
Here's a piece from The Telegraph on it:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/sarahpalin/3204292/False-claims-exposed-of-Kenyan-pastor-who-protected-Sarah-Palin-from-witches.html
In any event, what makes her praying to be protected from witchcraft or other forms of evil a "fundamentalist"? All Christians pray against evil ("...and deliver us from evil..."). If this is the best you guys can come up with, go away and stop wasting my time. Show me her talking in tongues or something like that - then I will accept she is a fundamentalist.
I don't believe you have read that article. The clue is in the title:
False claims exposed of Kenyan pastor who protected Sarah Palin from witches
The article is about claims the pastor made about banishing a witch, long before he met Palin.
Since the article is about events before the YouTube video, how can it disprove it?
Yes, Martin, he falsely claims to protect people from witches and has been exposed to have done so falsely.
I come back to my previous points that you have not and cannot refute. First, all Christians pray to be delivered from evil so in praying to be protected from witches, the devil or any other form of evildoing, she is the same as every other Christian who actually believes in what they believe. And secondly, where's the evidence of fundamentalism. There ain't none.
C-- you must try much harder
No, in the video she isn't praying. She is being blessed, and part of that blessing is to protect her from witchcraft.
I know that witchcraft doesn't exist. But why does Palin need to be protected from something which doesn't exist? Does she believe in witchcraft, or was the blessing just mumbo-jumbo?
“That he was educated at a madrassah. . . . Except none of those are smears. They are all factually accurate.”
Once again Donal, you display a casual attitude towards the facts, thereby undermining your argument if indeed you can call it that. It hardly matters where Obama went to school - in general, one doesn’t get to choose one’s childhood education. But in fact the allegation is completely baseless.
Laurence, you repulsive reptile. How unpleasant to see you on here again for the one comment of yours I am prepared to publish. Obama's faith was recorded in that school's records as "muslim" and he recently referred to "my muslim faith" (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=XKGdkqfBICw).
Martin: YOU don't believe witchcraft exists. You probably doubt the existence of the devil or demons. But Christians believe that through prayer and blessing we can be protected from witchcraft, the devil, demons etc. That is what faith is. Belief. You have a different (warped) set of beliefs, Gov Palin has hers. There is no evidence - and it is revealing you haven't shown any - that she is a fundamentalist speaking in tongues and so on. Your charge, and that repeated ad nauseam by the BBC, is baseless.
I agree with this post - those Tories who do support Obama seem largely very ill-informed about him and US politics, and what knowledge they do have comes from media they would normally scoff at as laughably incapable of giving conservative views a fair hearing.
But your slight against the conservative base is undeserved. They are far more in touch with public opinion on many issues than is John McCain, and a far greater electoral asset than he is. Can you explain what you mean by "Whereas in 2004, President Bush ran a divisive campaign on wedge issues such as abortion and gay marriage, the GOP has not done so in 2008"?
Of course, any campaign is divisive in the sense that some people will disagree with it, but why is campaigning on these issues divisive in a way that campaigning against tax rises or withdrawal from Iraq is not?
Peter, I don't decry it. It worked and it was probably the only way to have won in 2004. But as a Reagan-Thatcher conservative and not as socially conservative as many in the GOP that doesn't mean I have to be comfortable with the US equivalent of the Tory Taliban taking over the GOP!
So your pitch is "Their core vote is like the Taliban and they're taking over ... but support the Republicans anyway"? No wonder few are persuaded by that!
If I believed the GOP's pro-lifers and the like were equivalent to the Taliban - rather than expressing a perfectly respectable, democratic and humane view - I wouldn't back them either.
"Laurence, you repulsive reptile. How unpleasant to see you on here again for the one comment of yours I am prepared to publish".
That means you've had the one comment I'm prepared to publish. You are thoroughly discourteous and I have no intention of entering into discourse with you so don't waste your or my time by posting anything again.
Yes, the Tories are being completely daft when it comes to Obama. They seem unwilling to do any digging into the actual facts of the campaign. When McCain wins an awful lot of them are going to look terribly foolish.
Anonymous 1:04 - thankyou.
With regard to the witchcraft thing; that was only one example. However, I have to ask whether you read the story to which you linked; after all, it specifically says that
Mrs Palin, John McCain's running mate, prayed with Muthee in her hometown of Wasilla, Alaska in 2005. He asked God to protect Palin from "every form of witchcraft," and to bring help her way. She later credited him with helping her to win the job of governor of Alaska.
It was, in fact, the priest who was exposed as a fake; his claim to having driven out a witch was, er, nonsense. From the same article:
In fact, Mama Jane never left. She is a pastor just down the road from Muthee's Word of Faith Church.
The article you link to suggests that Gov Palin was taken in by a huckster.
Would you care to name the madrassah attended by Obama?
Would you care to condemn Patrick Sheahan, Exec Director for Public Affairs, UBS, for sitting on a board with Bill Ayers?
Returning to fundamentalism. I rather dislike the word 'fundamentalist' as used today. It should mean someone who believes in the fundamentals of their religion. For a Christian that might be the Decalog, the Beatitudes, the Golden Rule or somesuch; for a Jew, the Mitzvot; for a Muslim, the Pillars; for a Sikh, the five K's; and so on. It has minimal descriptive or predictive value. Given, though, that Gov Palin sets high stock on her religion, makes political judgement on that basis and has been conned by the aforementioned Bishop Thomas Muthee, it does not seem unreasonable to ask how her religious beliefs would affect her putative vice-presidency.
The supposition of the existence of witches is, I trust you will grant, a little odd.
xD.
Post a Comment