From Bush-Blair to McCain-Cameron?

Senator John McCain pays generous praise to David Cameron in an interview (not yet online) for this week's Spectator, conducted by Matthew d'Ancona. Here are some key extracts:

Green conservatism: "Asked what he likes about the young Tory leader, he lists “his youth, enthusiasm, willingness to embrace new ideas based on conservative policies” – and pays particular tribute to the Conservative Party’s fresh emphasis upon the environment. He sees Mr Cameron (to whom he has spoken at length, but will meet in the flesh for the first time this weekend) as “a breath of fresh air on the political scene”."

Moderate conservatism: "It is not hard to see why the Cameroons have wooed Sen McCain, and why he feels a kinship with them. His politics has long been based upon the principle that elections are won by transcending a party’s core vote – or “base”, as it is called in the US. His comparatively liberal positions on gay marriage, stem cell research and immigration have not endeared him to the Republican Right: he will face stiff opposition in the primaries if he runs. Beyond that, however, anything is possible."

Reaching the great middle of the British electorate: "“It’s very obvious to me that what Mr Cameron is trying to do is what I’ve been trying to do: preserve your base principles and philosophies, but also see how you can shape those policies to attract what is viewed as the independent voter, or the great middle of the British electorate. For example, in the United States our Republican Party basically [has] written off the State of California in the last several elections. Governor Schwarzenegger has just proved that California can be put in play. That’s what I see Mr Cameron and his cadre of very bright young people doing.”"

Hawkish in the war on terror: "Sen McCain’s position on the war is that of an unwavering hawk who nonetheless believes that the methods of the present administration are unsustainable, and will make the battle for hearts and minds – at home and abroad  - impossible to win. In the great US foreign policy debate, he is a Wilsonian idealist, who regards the plight of Darfur as no less pressing an issue than the threat of al Qaeda."... "“He understands that the war on terror is the transcendent issue of our time and that it’s going to be a long hard struggle,” says McCain.  “It’s not only on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq where British soldiers are sacrificing as we speak, but it’s also in the ideological struggle. That’s where the ultimate battle is, because you don’t win the war on the ground unless you win the war of moral superiority of your way of life, our standards, our ideals. Otherwise, you continue to breed soldiers and foot soldiers in the war on terror.”"

Comments

[ToMTom]

McCain is not Ronald Reagan and so will not become America's oldest President.

[changetowin]

John McCain is a man of courage and principle who is able to appeal to parts of his country that others in his party cannot reach. A perfect ally for David Cameron to build a better world.

[anon]

"Youth, enthusiasm, and willingness". This is all very good but it does make Cameron sound like an graduate trainee.

[Umbongo]

changetowin

"John McCain is a man of courage and principle". You are absolutely correct: McCain is "a perfect ally for David Cameron" since he would provide in spades exactly what DC lacks: courage and principle.

[malcolm]

Does every thread have to be turned into an attack on David Cameron Umbongo ? Apart from anything else it is so tedious to have to wade through this no matter what the subject of the editorial.

[Monday Clubber]

"John McCain is a man of courage and principle who is able to appeal to parts of his country that others in his party cannot reach."

A total misunderstanding of US politics from changetowin, but no surprise there.

"liberal" Democrats are hardly likely to vote for McCain, but it's unlikely they will get the chance anyway.

The religious right and their allies in the GOP will see to that.

[Gildas]

McCain has the following points going for him:

1. He is now the GOP establishment candidate. The GOP has picked the establishment candidate every time except 1964 and 1980.

2. He has good name recognition and is viewed favourably by many voters.

3. He was for the War on Terror before there was a War on Terror.

On the other hand...

1. The GOP base is in mutinous mood, like in 1964 and 1980.

2a. He is detested by conservative activists because despite a conservative voting record (which the Cameroonies would have a heart attack if they saw) he then goes on TV and badmouths conservatives. There's also the absolute unconstitutional travesty that was Campaign Finance Reform, which has made him anathema to many non-aligned libertarian types.

2b. The Press likes him because he is the 'non-Republican Republican'. As soon as he became the nominee the hit jobs would start.

3. Giuliani is frankly a better candidate for conservatives who are willing to forgo a conservative nominee in return for getting a hawk. That and he's been working on the religous conservatives since his 2004 convention speech (and very much below the pundits radar). If he can find a way of mollifying gun owners, the nomination is his.

[Andrew Young]

McCain would go a long way to repairing the rift between US and her allies, especially Britain.

However I don't fancy his chances in the primary system where he will be picked off just as he was by Bush for not being dogmatic enough.

A pity - the US has suffered from clumsy foreign policy by Bush.

[Sean Fear]

Even allowing for the fact that the political centre of gravity in the USA is to the right of the political centre of gravity here, John McCain is well to the Right of the Conservative Party.

[gingeral]

McCain is great and I sincerely hope he will be the next president, Cameron would do well to cultivate him as an ally.

[Jack Stone]

Mcain is I think unlikely to be the next President because the people are likely to plump for a moderate who they think will get them out of Bush`s foreign Adventures not someone who is just as extreme as those who have been in the White House these last six years.

[Michael McGowan]

I quite like McCain although his uncritical adulation of the Northern Ireland "peace process" antics of Blair and Clinton does not help his credentials in relation to the War against Terror.

However, he may have missed a key point. The Republican Party has been able to assemble and keep more or less together a big tent of supporters ranging from Texan social conservatives to more libertarian people like Giuliani and Schwarznegger. This has been its great achievement since Goldwater and has produced great electoral success and a confident wide-ranging centre-right agenda. Reagan, Nixon and both Bushes have worked hard to keep this loose coalition together and to grow it, in California, in Florida, in Colorado and the formerly Democrat South. That is what "transcending" your core vote should be all about and is something which the Conservative Party has not done in a long long time. Indeed, it is now banking on winning a General Election relying on fickle leftleaning floating voters alone. No prizes for guessing which Party has been conspicuously less successful.

[Gildas]

However I don't fancy his chances in the primary system where he will be picked off just as he was by Bush for not being dogmatic enough.

A pity - the US has suffered from clumsy foreign policy by Bush.

Except that McCain in those primaries in 2000 was advocating basically the same Foreign Policy you complain about from Bush. 'Rogue State Rollback' ring any bells???

[Andrew]

Despite all the predictions of difficulties in the primaries, the markets still make McCain a big favourite. At the end of the day, they're usually right.

[aristeides]

"Despite all the predictions of difficulties in the primaries, the markets still make McCain a big favourite. At the end of the day, they're usually right."

Andrew - it is very early days!

[Goldie]

As someone who lives in NYC, I can assure you that neither McCain nor Cameron will lead their country after the respective next elections.

[Michael Clarke,Chairman Northampton South]

Conservatives will have the privilege of listening to this probable future U.S.President at their conference next week.Labour, by contrast, wheel on a discredited past President this afternoon;a President who was impeached for lying on oath, who was up to his neck in sleaze and scandal.He should feel at home with the company he keeps in Manchester.

[Jon White]

McCain certainly wants it, and does have broad support. He could appeal across the political sprectrum. However, it is very early days and his age would be against him. Guiliani is certainly a contender - could deliver key votes in the East, but as for national appeal the jury is still out. Do not write off Ms Rice. She says that she doesn't want it, but don't they all?

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

His best chance was 2000 - now his age will probably count against him.

Let's face it folks - McCain has had his chips.

[Jon White]

Michael Clarke @14.18:

All that you say is true. However, if Clinton (Mr., not Mrs) was to run again in 2008 he would walk it. The Americans love him, DESPITE his personal failings. He knew the score with his famous "It's the economy, stupid" comment.

As you say correctly, he will feel very at home in Manchester!

[Antony Calvert]

I've never really liked John McCain and my favourite US politician is Rudy.. but for the party to be attracting such a big hitter to address us (as I believe he will be) is a real coup and shows the world that we are serious about winning.

[Voice from the South West]

I sincerely hope McCain becomes President in 2008, however I fear he will fail at the Primary stage. Giuliani would also be an agreeable choice, but I don't think the Religious Right would tolerate his social liberalism and so he'd would fall at the Primary Stage also.

[Jon White]

Which is why Condi could be the choice that they do go with. For me, Mayor Giuliani would be the best possible choice. Sadly, I agree that the Religious Right could stop him.

A very sad state of affairs. The US calls Iran a theocracy, but the power of these truly horrible people on the Religious Right of US politics would indicate that religion is more crucial there.

And this in a country whose constitution GUARANTEES a seperation of Church and State.

[Michael McGowan]

What an absurd remark. There is no comparison between the hideous medieval brutality of the Mullahs and the religious right in the US, who are at best one voice, if a vocal one, on the US political spectrum.

[Jon White]

Not absurd at all. Your ignorance of the situation is the absurdity.

Fact: McCain has had to pander to the Religious Right to get any sort of chance at the nomination.

Fact: No one can get the GOP nomination if the Religious Right oppose them.

I did not seek to compare the hideous medieval brutality of the Mullahs to the US Religious Right. The brutality of the Mullah's is much worse. I was making reference to the influence that extreme (I would say fanatical in both cases) have on mainstream political debate in Iran and the US. The influence of the Religfious Right in the US is ENORMOUS. Go there and see it first hand, as I have, if you don't believe me.

(Incidentally, whilst I agree that the brutality of the Mullahs is worse, that may be only because they can get away with it. Thankfully, the US still has, for the moment, a legal system that does not allow the excesses towards certain groups that the Religious Right would happily embrace given the chance. To have a truly civilised society, Church and State should be totally independent of each other. This is NOT the case in the US).

[Gareth]

"As someone who lives in NYC, I can assure you that neither McCain nor Cameron will lead their country after the respective next elections."

Goldie,

I'm intrigued. What is it about living in NYC that makes you more able than those of us who actually live here to "assure" us as to the outcome of the next British general election?

[Given Up]

Goldie's right.

McCain won't win, he is detested by vast amounts of the GOP. No wonder Cameron invited him, neither are true to their parties.

[Richard]

I seem to recall reading somewhere that Giuliani suffers from that unfortunate American trait of sympathising rather too much with Irish republicanism. Is this true?

[Yet Another Anon]

It appears to be Bush-Blair to Bush-Brown to McCain-Brown and probably Gonzales-Brown followed by Gonzales-Balls, after that ? (Maybe another Bush?)-Patel? It looks like the Democrats have lost the plot on the presidency for at least until 2024 and maybe Congress will stay Republican too?

[Antony Calvert]

Is this Yet Another Anon guy for real?!?!

[Yet Another Anon]

Things have gone from bad to worse for the Democrats since 2000, John Kerry was their most flawed leader since Jimmy Carter, every time they have looked like they were about to make a recovery they somehow actually lose ground when it comes around to elections, meanwhile in the UK there are signs of revival in both main parties but no sign of David Cameron actually making it to Downing St.

[Monday Clubber]

"Fact: No one can get the GOP nomination if the Religious Right oppose them."

Exactly.

One or two posters seem to think the Republicans are a vaguely more rightwing version of the UK Conservative party with everybody loyally prepared to pull behind some middle-of-the-road lowest-common-denominator compromise leader.

They ignore the huge power of the religious and other "conservative" (ie rightwing) caucuses, all of which are very non-Cameroon.

Of course there are "liberal" party caucuses such as the (gay) Log Cabin Republicans. Checkout their websites and you will see that their influence is zilch.

[Yet Another Anon]

The Democrat party isn't the Labour Party and the Republican Party isn't the Conservative Party, then again Ronald Reagan, Bush Senior and even Dubya weren't quite Moral Majority but were really quite mainstream in the US - on some issues there are some differences, Presidents mostly have control over foreign policy and far less over domestic policy - a Republican congress would be able to override any Liberal views of John McCain while as with Bill Clinton, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson who were all Liberals the President can get on with continuing with the War on Terror.

[Yet Another Anon]

His comparatively liberal positions on gay marriage, stem cell research and immigration have not endeared him to the Republican Right
Although it is important to remember that on the issue of Dubai Ports and of immigrant workers into the USA - Dubya has been very pragmatic, he has pointed out that many of the immigrants are actually much more hard working than the indigenous people in the USA, that UAE for example is an ally and who has it been hectoring but notably the Democrats and one Hilary Clinton the bra burning fanatic who spent her years as First lady destabilising US Foreign Policy by attempting to promote radical feminism worldwide and so alienating groups such as the taliban who possibly otherwise would not have sheltered Al Qaeda - so it isn't as clear cut as that, at most with regards to immigration John McCain would continue what already is quite a pragmatic approach.

[Goldie]

Condi is not in the running, Giuliani is way too liberal for the GOP primaries and if he's smart, won't run, but neither is in any case electable.

McCain should, obviously, have been the '9/11 President' instead of Bush, but it's too late now. The conservative base -rightly- distrusts him and he is too old. The GOP might well rally to the strongest alternative ("Anyone but McCain"). Unclear who this will be. Most likely candidate at the moment is Gov. Mitt Romney.

Should McCain get the nomination, though, I think the Democrats' chances go up by a lot. A significant portion of the GOP base isn't thrilled about him, this will hurt tremendously in the close election that 2008 is inevitably going to be.

My money is on a Democratic President. My money is also on a fourth term for "renewed New Labour".

[Goldie]

PS: I don't think he'll get the nomination, but if there are betting men out there, put all your money on Newt Gingrich. He will do well in the first primaries.

[Jon White]

Goldie, if you seriously believe that Gringrich is worth a bet, you truly have more money than sense.

Condi isn't in the running - YET. Wait and see.

Mitt Romney is a good outside bet, I agree. However, do you really think that a Mormon can win the White House? I also agree with you that McCain has little chance.

As a NYC resident I would be interested in your take on who the Democrats will go with? Your Junior Senator? Do you think that Biden has any real chance? Who else would you tip?

[Julian Williams]

"Does every thread have to be turned into an attack on David Cameron Umbongo ? Apart from anything else it is so tedious to have to wade through this no matter what the subject of the editorial."

How about: because he is shallow and will say anything to get your vote, and after ten years of Blair we cannot face the thought of Baby-Blair representing our party and country?

[verulamgal]

Well said Julian Willams (01:46) My veiws on the man exactly

[Gildas]

A very sad state of affairs. The US calls Iran a theocracy, but the power of these truly horrible people on the Religious Right of US politics would indicate that religion is more crucial there.

And this in a country whose constitution GUARANTEES a seperation of Church and State.

Oh dear, I don't know where to begin with this one. You disowned your pathetic bit of moral equivalence lower down the thread so I'll leave that alone.

Let's see. Its an academic point given the way the Supreme Court carries on, but no, the US Constitution does not guarantee the 'separation of church and state'. It proscribes the 'establishment of religion', and it protects 'the free excercise thereof'. Which is why those 'horrible people' as you so nicely put it get worked up when the courts demand that a Christmas tableaux be removed from the town square, or that people refrain from voluntary acts of prayer before High School football games.

I'd be intrigued to know what it is that makes religous conservatives 'horrible'? Is it opposition to a judicially invented requirement that no law may infringe upon abortion? Including abortions which are completely illegal in most EU states?

Or is it opposition to judges redefining the word 'marriage' over and above the wishes of the People?

Or is it the wish for the state to stop actively undermining their values so they can get on and raise their children in peace? (Its commonly overlooked but most religous conservatives don't want to force their religion on you via the State, they want to stop the Government undermining them).

Or maybe its having reservations about using cells from aborted children when there are just as good lines from live consenting adults available?

Since most people hold more than one thought in their heads at once, I'm curious. Does being in favour of low taxes and being a religous conservative make one less 'horrible'? Or is being a Christian a black mark that overrides all others?

And incidentally, for a supposed powerhouse lobby, the 'Religous Right' doesn't seem to be very good at getting actual results. We're 6 years into the Bush administration and what do they have to show for it? A ban on federal funding of foreign abortions, a currently suspended by the courts ban on Partial Birth Abortion (or infanticide as it used to be called) and a veto of federal funding for stem cell research. Clearly, they call the shots throughout the US!

[Thatcher for leader]

I am so glad I read through some pretty unpleasant comments, such as those from Jon White to get to the very succinct comment from Gildas.
He's right, and perhaps instead of vascilating on the US, we should start learning why it is the Republicans keep winning!
On a separeate note, as a member of Republicans Abroad UK, I can say that McCain is not popular as candidate - there is a great deal of animiosty against him. As one member said to me, 'he was anti-war on terror before any one else was'. He's seen, wrongly I believe, as a turncoat. I suppose meeting Cameron when Bush won't, say's it all.

[Goldie]

Jon White:

Hillary (70% chance), Gore (25% chance) or Edwards (5%) will be the Democratic nominee.

Condi will never get in the race.

I bet on Tradesports. Gingrich will not win the nomination, but I think he will definitely end in the top-3 in several of the first few primary states. Right now the market gives him a 3% chance of getting the nomination. Once he scores, say, 20% in Iowa that will shoot up and I will make a lot of money.

[Michael McGowan]

I bow before your superior intellect, Jon. I am clearly in the presence of a poor man's Solomon.....especially as Gildas seems far better informed than you.

Your last paragraph responding to me is truly surreal. The whole point of having a legal system and a democracy is to restrict the ability of ALL pressure groups on others who do not accept them. So what point are you making? Why do religious groups, pleasant or unpleasant, need to be particularly controlled? After all, the main menace of the last 100 years have been atheist fundamentalists, not religious people at all. Or are you just one of those left-leaning secular dogmatists for whom religion is anathema and any opportunity is a good one to denigrate religious people?

[Sean Fear]

"Thankfully, the US still has, for the moment, a legal system that does not allow the excesses towards certain groups that the Religious Right would happily embrace given the chance."

I see no evidence at all that the majority of politically active Christians in the US would seek to suppress non-Christian religions, or stone women for adultery, or allow religious leaders to dismiss democratically elected politicians.

For at least 200 years, the USA has combined a high level of religious devotion with total religious tolerance.

[Gareth]

Perhaps Sean, but they would certainly prevent women from exercising autonomy over their own bodies. Many of them would also prohibit a significant minority of their fellow citizens from the free expression of their sexuality.

[Sean Fear]

Not so much their own bodies as those of others.

[Gareth]

Well, there we disagree.

[Michael McGowan]

You may disagree, Gareth, but it would be appreciated if you and your ilk would accept that there is an alternative ethically cogent point of view which is not "bigotry" simply because you don't happen to share it (and I do not support a total ban on abortion).

As for homosexuality, there are also a significant number of liberal fundamentalists who would drive underground orthodox Christian, Hindu and Muslim teaching on the subject. I don't accept that teaching but I do believe in free speech and freedom of thought.

[Gareth]

"you and your ilk" - I'm intrigued as to who my 'ilk' are.

"there is an alternative ethically cogent point of view which is not "bigotry" simply because you don't happen to share it" - I know it's easier to make up your opponent's argument and refute that than actually bother to ask your opponent's view, but for what it's worth, I accept that opposition to abortion can be ethically cogent and wouldn't presume to describe such views as bigotted.

"As for homosexuality, there are also a significant number of liberal fundamentalists who would drive underground orthodox Christian, Hindu and Muslim teaching on the subject. I don't accept that teaching but I do believe in free speech and freedom of thought." - Well, when orthodox Christians get beaten up for their views on homosexuality; or have discriminatory laws passed against them; or have their children taken off them because of their views, I'll be right up there with them on the barricades, defending their freedom of speech and thought. In the meantime, let's not get carried away with their victimhood shall we?

[Thatcher for leader]

Any thoughts on McCain then, or is this an existentialdebate on freedom of religion!

[Michael McGowan]

On the abortion point, Gareth, I assume that you sympathise with Jon Gale's point of view and he certainly seems to regard the American religious right as pretty bigoted, without exception. Anyway, thank you for the acknowledgement.

As for your second point, it's presumably quite OK then to arrest people for public order offences because they express disapproval of homosexuality in public; or to dismiss them, demote them or discipline them for the same reasons??

[Gareth]

Why assume I agree with Jon Gale?

It's simply impossible to answer your second point in the absence of more specific information as to the situations you're referring to.

[Jon White]

Okay, I seem to be the target of much abuse here, and I will try to answer as best I can. Taking Gildas points first:

I accept your superior knowledge of the American Constitution, and recind my remark. Please explain to me however how, this month, a Church in the West (California I think, but am not sure) is being investigated because it's Pastor allegedly told his flock to vote for Kerry? (He didn't, BTW. He preached a sermon as a mock debate between Kerry, Bush and a 'proposed' third party candidate, Jesus Christ). The constitution may not guarantee a seperate church and state as I erroneously claimed, but there is no 'official' religion of the US, like the C of E is in the UK. Despite that, it would be impossible for a non-christian to become President. Look how both Kerry and Bush HAD to both go to great pains to stress their Christian credentials. Without them, they were lost.

You then go on to ask what makes Religious Conservatives 'horrible'. Firstly, I didn't brand Religious Conservatives horrible. I branded the Religious Right horrible. There is a difference. Being a conservative and being religious (Christian, Hindu, Jew, Muslim) does not make one horrible. The particular sect I was alluding to was the intolerance and sheer bigotry of the Fundalmentalist Christians who do wield huge influence. (Especially in the GOP). I refer to their regarding homosexuals as second class citizens (yes, denying them the right to marriage which is given to heterosexuals DOES just that), denying women control of their own bodies, denying scientific evidence of Darwinian theory and getting it banned from being taught in schools - i.e. indoctrinating children with false science etc etc. These are pretty horrible traits in my eyes. The problem is their intolerance, and belief that God is on their side. (Rather like the Mullah's in Iran). Intolerance breeds destruction - the 9/11 hi-jackers also believed that God was on their side. Forcing Creationist teaching in school, Gildas, IS forcing their religion on you.

Stem cell research? I truly do not know about this to engage in debate with you. I do know that many families who have seen relatives suffer from Alzheimers are in favour of it. But, the same Religious Right oppose it. Go figure.

Being a Christian certainly does NOT give one a black mark. Nor does being in favour of low personal taxation (as I am). The black mark is against intolerance and respect for other viewpoints.

Your final comment that the Religious Right doesn't get results I find incredulous. If the Religious Right oppose you, you cannot get the GOP nomination. McCain himself, in a bid to appease them, has come out in favour of discussing 'Intelligent Design' as an alternative to Darwinian or Creationist theory. He doesn't believe in that. He knows it's complete BS. But he has to pander to this type of narrow mindedness to appease these people who you say get no results.

Michael McGowan: Try and argue with facts, not sarcastic personal abuse. It ill becomes a serious site like this, and just makes you look quite sad.

The menace of the last 100 years has been atheist fundalmentalists. I presume you refer to forced aethism under Communism. Of course that has been pretty dreadful - it's another example of intolerance and refusal to accept that someone else holds different views. The menace now is fundalmental and violent Islam. The menace of the 1900 years before the last 100 was religious (often Christian) fundlamentalism. Look at your history books. More people have been killed over whose God was better than any other cause. And it goes on today.

My point was that THANKFULLY the US has a legal system that largely prevents bigotry of this nature being turned into action. Long may it continue. I admire it. I raised it to point out that without it, my belief (and it is a belief not a provable fact, but bombing of arbortion clinics for example leads me to this view) is that the Religious Right would happily engage in equal brutality towards 'non-believers' as the hideous Mullahs that you first referred to.

I believe that my last paargraph also answers Sean Fear's point.

[Sean Fear]

Well, I suppose it depends what you mean by "Religious Right", John. If by that term, you mean an organisation like "God Hates Fags" then I suppose you'd be right in believing they would establish a theocracy if they ever came to power.

But if you just mean people who are opposed to same-sex marriage, or support restrictions on abortion, in both cases you're describing a large majority of the US population (and the majority in quite a few European countries as well). That doesn't make them theocrats, or people who'd engage in brutality towards non-Christians if they could get away with it.

[Gareth]

Jon,

Personally my attitude to the American religious right is (a) to thank God I was born an Englishman and (b) to remember that these are the people who think God created the world in 6 days. Keeping (b) well in mind helps me to maintain a little perspective on their other beliefs.

[Jon White]

Gareth, your points (a) and (b) are well taken. Of course, the God creating the world in 6 days is from Jewish scripture anyway, (though I dounbt many Jewish people would still subscribe to that view today), so how it comes into Christian view is debatable. Lets not forget that it was comparatively late in the 20th Century that the Roman Church admitted it's error in excommunicating Galileo for saying the earth was round. That does put the views of these zealots into some sort of perspective I suppose.

And same-sex marriage. Anyone who has been married will tell you that after a while in a marriage, it's always the same sex.

[ToMTom]

I think Jon White really should join a library and do a lot of reading before spilling his ill-informed prejudices all over the Web.

Gildas thoughtfully addressed some of the stream of consciousness errors spewed out by Jon White, but the ignorance is stultifying.

I see NO reason why US taxpayers should fund Embryo Stem-Cell Research - even Clinton banned the use of Federal Funds. Why must the taxpayer fund such things ?
It is a very unproven technology but not the only Stem Cell Research underway, there is Adult Stem-Cell research too.

As for Christianity - Jon White clearly prefers the sentimentalism of the C of E to those who believe in something. I ask Jon White to articulate the core theological principles of the C of E.

Galileo did not say the world was "round". Do read up on the subject matter. The Church upheld the Ptolemaic system against Copernicus and Ptolemy held that the planetary orbits were different from those Galileo observed through his personal telescope.

Your vitriol against Christianity seems all-embracing, and this seemingly because it will not throw out its Christian Gospel and sanctify your preference for gay relationships.

One thing Galileo never managed to prove Jon White - he never proved that the world revolved around Jon White. Get used to it, it is a big planet with billions of people and they are not interesting in the adolescent screams of someone as ill-informed as you prove yourself to be.

[malcolm]

An even more pompous post than usual Tomtom

[comstock]

My money is on a Democratic President.

I'd say that was likely. I don't know much about US politics, but purely on the basis Bush junior seems unpopular in a way Reagan never became and the fact three in a row is quite rare. Only Reagan and Bush senior have done it in recent times.

My money is also on a fourth term for "renewed New Labour".

Mine also, but thats another subject.

[comstock]

An even more pompous post than usual Tomtom

If the editor gets fed up with them, he may email him and say "Tomtom, go!"

Sorry.......

[Sean Fear]

Surprisingly, perhaps, Comstock, support for both Bush and the Republicans has risen sharply in recent days. It is quite possible the Republicans will now retain both Houses in November.

[comstock]

Maybe, sean. The US politcal scene is so different from our own it's impossible to draw direct parallels.

Who'da thought Bush and Blair would be anything other the deadly rivals!

[Jon White]

Dear me, Tomtom, we are in a state aren't we? You have every right to disagree with me, as does anyone else, but why reduce debate to personal attacks? Show some more class, Sir.

A few points: I didn't speak in defense of the C of E. I used it as an example of an 'official' religion, which the UK has (Head of State is also Head of the Church), and the US does not. I do not know what their core theological principles are, so cannot enlighten you Im afraid.

As the US does not have a publicly funded health system, I don't see how the tax-payer is funding stem cell research. Maybe, universities that do research into how to alleviate such distressing conditions such as Alzheimer's get some governement funding. I don't know. I hope that they do. ALL technology is unproven at first, that why it get researched. Then if it is proven, it is used. It is used to cure people. Presumably, although you don't say it, you consider yourself a Christian. Surely you would approve of lessening the agregate of human misery.

I'll take your word for it on Galileo. Clearly he was wrong and those wonderful scientific minds in the Vatican were right.

I have no vitriol against Christianity at all. My vitriol is against any religious intolerance, and we see plenty of it from all religions. I just wish that some of Christianity's so called adherents would practise it's principles. Nor do I have a preference for gay relationships! (I am actually laughing at the thought of that). I just don't think that I am any better than anyone else because of the way I choose to make love, and to whom. My knowledge of the New Testament is good enough to know one thing - NOWHERE in all 4 gospels is their any record of Jesus Christ making ANY statement about homosexuality. Check it. Plenty in the Old Testament, I agree, and plenty from St. Paul, but no recorded words on the subject at all from the Saviour himself.

Indeed, I was taught (and still believe) that Jesus Christ taught love, understanding, and tolerance. Now if only the fine upstanding people who claim to follow him would listen to that message!

[Robson S Leeds]

Can some of these professional cynics and Cameron-bashers please decide on who should be the guest foreign speaker at the conference please.

John McCain is a great man and a courageous patriot and war hero who survived years of torture and imprisonment at the hands of the Viet Cong. Consistently he has shown he is ahead of the times on the big issues challenging the world today - unlike many US and British right-wingers he is not obsessed with rehashing the arguments of yesteryear and talking himself into an irrelevant corner. He considers the evidence, listens to diverse opinions and comes to conclusion based on realpolitik and not the constricting lines of dogma

To have a man of his stature, experience and ability comparing DC to JFK so analytically and enthusiastically must have the contrarians and the flat-earthers choking on their bile. ;)

[Jon White]

In response to earlier denials about there being an official seperation of Church and State in the US, some research has yielded the following results:

The founding of the United States of America took place in 1787 with the signing of the Constitution, which is a purely secular document. In relation to religion the Constitution states:

"Article VI: Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

The Bill Of Rights was quickly amended to the Constitution in order to protect the rights of citizens because the original Constitution primarily just defined the powers of government. The third Article of the Bill of Rights (which became the first amendment) states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

There is often debate about what exactly the First Amendment means, however, in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists, Thomas Jefferson (who is generally regarded as the author of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution) made clear that the purpose of the First Amendment was to establish a "wall of separation" between Church and State in order to protect individuals' right of conscience:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

Should anyone be interested, I will gladly forward the web-page from which I gleaned this info. Looks pretty clear to me (though I am no lawyer) that the US Constitution pretty much 'de facto' guarantees a seperation of Church and State

[malcolm]

Don't worry Jon Tomtom likes to demonstrate either his (a) great education or (b)his ability to find out a few facts from Google in every post. Anyone who can dismiss the majesty of the C of E as merely sentimental is clearly not worth listening on matters of religion anyway.

[Dave J]

It was said earlier that McCain is anathema to many because of his support for campaign finance "reform." That's as it should be. He either fundamentally lacks any understanding of the First Amendment or, worse, and more likely, doesn't care. On that basis he has betrayed his oath and deserves nothing but contempt. I would never vote for him under any circumstances and I know there are large numbers of the GOP and of Republican-inclined independent voters who feel similarly.

"Condi is not in the running, Giuliani is way too liberal for the GOP primaries..."

Giuliani polls well and draws huge crowds even in South Carolina, the most conservative of the early GOP primary states. Do I agree with him 100% on everything? No. But I plan to do everything I can to see him elected, and I know I'm far from the only person who feels that way.

"The GOP might well rally to the strongest alternative ("Anyone but McCain"). Unclear who this will be. Most likely candidate at the moment is Gov. Mitt Romney."

As a native of Massachusetts (in indefinite exile here in Florida), even though I'm a Republican, I despise Romney. I wouldn't go so far as to call him an empty suit, but he cares more for getting his name in the papers than for any kind of principle. If only Bush hadn't named Paul Celluci as Ambassador to Canada, Massachusetts might still have a serious, thoughtful and committed conservative as governor, a rare thing indeed for my home state.

[Jon White]

Interesting post Dave J. I must confess that despite having a home in Connecticut I know almost nothing about Romney, the Governer of the State next door. I would be very interested in your viewpoint as to whether or not his Mormon faith will be an electoral asset or a liability. What do you think?

I am with all the way on Mayor Guiliani. I think that he would make a truly excellent President and I for one hope that he stands a realistic chance. Good luck in all that you can do for him.

[Jon White]

Malcolm, fear not, I'm far to old and ugly to be in any way worried by personal attacks from the likes of Tomtom. I just find it incredible that I can be accused of prefering gay relationships from someone who has never met me! That's the price I suppose of expressing moderate viewpoints! (and as you know, my politics are to the right of many who post here.)

I'll debate facts with anyone. I just find it hard to take seriously people who degenerate debate into personal abuse, especially those who give the impression of arguing from a 'Christian' viewpoint.

[Gildas]

There is often debate about what exactly the First Amendment means, however, in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists, Thomas Jefferson (who is generally regarded as the author of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution) made clear that the purpose of the First Amendment was to establish a "wall of separation" between Church and State in order to protect individuals' right of conscience...

I had written a longer post about this but unfortunately the blog ate it. I don't have the time to rewrite it, so briefly:

1. Thomas Jefferson did not write the Constitution. In fact he was in Paris when the Constitution was drafted and was not in the First Congress which passed the Bill of Rights, so why his views are supposedly binding I am not sure. (Though I note that the same people who take his view on this matter as gospel, don't want to make his views on the Second Amendment binding on constitutional interpretation)

2. The First Congress, on the same day it passed the Bill of Rights, issued a joint resolution calling on President Washington to "request that he would recommend to the People of the United States, a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed, by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God". The representative who actually drafted the first amendment later complained (around the same time as TJ's letter to the Danbury Baptists) about the way new textbooks were driving the Bible out of schools.

If they had meant separation of Church and State, they would have said it.

As far as that Church being investigated goes, that has nothing to do with Church and State. It has to do with Tax law. Churches are exempt from tax provided they do not engage in politics. If you engage in politics when you are Tax Exempt you will get audited by the IRS.

Stem cell research? I truly do not know about this to engage in debate with you. I do know that many families who have seen relatives suffer from Alzheimers are in favour of it. But, the same Religious Right oppose it. Go figure.

No many Christians oppose Embryonic Stem Cell research. That is taking the cells of aborted embryos and using them for experimentation. In fact it requires fresh embryoes. That is what they are opposed to - Adult Stem Cell research is uncontroversial. And just to be clear, all that they have accomplished on that matter is to prevent federal money being used to fund the research. It is not banned, just prohibited from being funded by the US government, which given that a good half the population of the US (i.e. those who actually pay for federal research grants) oppose it, I think that is pretty fair.

Your ignorance on the issue of Intelligent Design, Darwinism and Creationism is also staggering. Nowhere has Darwinism been banned from the classroom. Nowhere has Biblical Creationism been imposed on the curriculum. The imbroglio is about whether so-called Intelligent Design should be allowed to be presented as an alternative theory. I have no time for Intelligent Design but since a sizeable proportion of the population (including a majority of Democrats incidentally) want it on the curriculum as well as Darwinism, I see no reason why local school boards shouldn't be able to put it on there.

But lets step back a bit. Because you say you don't mind Religous Conservatives, but you don't like the Religous Right. I would be really curious where you draw the line. What makes someone a member of the Religous Right and therefore beyond the pale? You have made it pretty clear that you view as horrible anyone who endorses a number of viewpoints that command anything from 40% to 70% support among the American people, so your distinction of religous conservatives = good and religous right = bad is looking as shakey as John Kerry's claim to be 'personally against' abortion but willing to do anything to keep it utterly unrestricted.

PS: To the guy who mentioned the GodHatesFags bloke. Firstly, Fred Phelps is in for a big surprise one day when he finds the blood of those he has put off Christianity and therefore dissuaded from seeking salvation is on his hands. But secondly and more importantly to this discussion, he can't be called the 'Religous Right', because he is a Democrat and moreover was Al Gore's Kansas campaign manager the first time Gore ran for President.

I would love to continue this discussion, and might make a few more comments before the end of the day, but alas, after today I will most likely be without an internet connection for a while. In three weeks time I'm emigrating to the USA. I'll continue to visit this site which is the most fantastic development in British conservatism since Maggie Thatcher, and maybe make it back to help campaign in the next election. I'll certainly keep voting Tory until they disenfranchise me.

[Sean Fear]

Gildas, I should have explained that even among fundamentalist US Christians, Phelps is regarded as a nutter. And he is, as you say, a Democrat.

[Michael McGowan]

Gareth, a very lawyerly answer to my second point, if I may say so....

Jon, the irony is that when it comes to substance, I probably agree with you and Gareth on much more than I disagree in relation to matters such as stem cell research, abortion and same sex marriages. What I find much harder to deal with is your apparent inability to accept that these are complex issues. There may be a range of genuinely-held and cogently expressed views which you disagree with but that doesn't make the people who hold them necessarily "evil" or "horrible". Some no doubt are but they are as much entitled as you to express their views even if you vehemently disagree. The need to vilify these people betrays a worrying lack of confidence in your own opinions.

Like Gildas, I have problems seeing where Religious Right begins and Religious Conservatism ends. My experience of living in the US and meeting religious people there is that their views on ethical issues vary a lot, even among the more evangelically-minded. Is your real objection that the drab brand of doctrinaire secularism which permeates post-Christian Britain is not the norm in the US too?

[Dave J]

"Thomas Jefferson did not write the Constitution. In fact he was in Paris when the Constitution was drafted and was not in the First Congress which passed the Bill of Rights, so why his views are supposedly binding I am not sure..."

Going further than that, Jefferson was an anti-federalist and actively opposed the US Constitution during the ratification debates, though not so vigorously or in such harsh terms as his mentor Patrick Henry. It's James Madison who's widely regarded as the father and principal drafter of the Constitution, though it was Alexander Hamilton who was probably its most ardent and visionary supporter.