« Cameron to outline ambitious apprenticeships policy | Main | Cameron 'prayed' that Brown wouldn't hold autumn 2007 election »

Comments

Count me in as a proud 'ObamaCon'. The political spectrum is so varied within America any 'demands' that we should be loyal to the Republicans is absurd. The days of Nixon and Rockefeller are long gone.

Obama an anti-politician?

He is the very epitome of the cynical career politician.

All these people placing there own vague sense of 'hope' and change' upon him are sure to be disappointed. It's all very Blair circa 1997.

Obama is one of the most left-wing of Democrat Senators by voting record. McCain is hardly of the wing of the Republican Party which I'd like to have seen nominated but of the two of them there is a country mile between which one Tories should prefer to see elected.

Is this strategic positioning and have our top brass written McCain off or are we just hedging our bets?

The Democrats put up two very weird front-runners this time round and I'm still undecided whether the spooky one or the one who has never done anything would have been their better choice.

What Douglas Carswell says above is largely correct "...big govt bad..McCain the same..." etc but the answer is not Barack Hussein Obama. He is a career politician through and through. He's no "anti-politician" at all.

A Conservative should (as I am) be wearing a John McCain lapel badge with pride right now. The Democrat alternative would be a nightmare for the world although on the upside he'd be out after a single term I'm sure.

I find so many things to like and admire about both Barack Obama and John McCain that its not a case of 'either or' for me, instead I'm in agreement with the Economist’s front page of a few weeks back which summed the two candidate’s nominations as ‘America at its Best‘.

There are a great many things that unnerve me about the current state of the GOP, chiefly it’s fundamental intellectual exhaustion (it seems a long time since the ‘contract with America’), but at the same time the protectionism and near isolationism of many Democrats also concerns me.

So, while both parties contain elements and display characteristics that give me cause for concern, both candidates have a great deal to offer and would make fine Presidents – frankly I’d urge folks to savour an election where voters aren’t being asked to vote for the ‘lesser of two evils’ for once :)

I find it amazing that some many Tories are interfering in foreign domestic politics.

What right does the rich, enobled Rifkind have to tell us Yanks who we should elect? We're an independent country and have been since 1776.

American Republican-

Calm down, nobody is 'interfering' and Rifkind isn't 'telling' anyone how to vote. It's hardly surprising he has a preference of some kind is it? (his preference is wrong in my opinion, but that's another matter)

The two most prominent Tories quoted as Obama backers show to me why McCain must be better! Rifkind - a failure here if ever there was one - ratted on the Scots Tories when he saw a safe seat going a-begging. Willetts may have 'two brains' but why does he never engage either of them in gear. He was my ward chairman and I beat him at 'Call My Bluff"

And to American Republican above I would say - "Totally agree". I've wondered why the blog has devoted so much space to the US primaries. Nothing we can do about it when more pressing matters closer to home need urgent attention. (Like the undemocratic EU that rule us)

What I've read and seen of Obama makes me see a man of straw with no experience and not a record to be particularly proud or ashamed of. Better than Clinton but that's said it all.

American Republican - many on our side of the political spectrum have a great regard for the USofA and care what the result of the election is.

As an internationalist I also knew who I hoped would recently win in Australia and Rhodesia (I lost on both of those)

Why can't I cheer someone on from another country?

I hope that there is much more - not less - reporting on this blog in the next few months about the left-right battle which will shape the world for the next 4/8 years.

There is a difference between following an election and having a preference for a candidate, but for FOREIGN politicians to be so open for one candidate or another is interference in another country's internal political affairs. It's a diplomatic no-no, and someone like Rifkind - a foreign minister at one time - should know netter.

Furthermore, his comments were ridiculous. What standing does he have to say it would be good for Americans to have a black president? It implies that we are somehow culturally inferior to our former rulers.

I don't understand the rationale for some of these Tories supporting Obama. It seems to be more about them hating President Bush (or at least appearing that way to constituents) than them actually agreeing with Obama's policies or stances.

British MPs and government officials should not be interfering in the domestic affairs of a sovereign nation.

Nobody cares what some enobled elitist in Kensington and Chelsea thinks.

"Obama-Con"
Says it all.....

I don't mind British people endorsing a candidate (in fact, I find it fascinating), but (even potential) ministers to the Crown should be reticent to do so publicly. During the 1992 election, Major soured transatlantic relations for the remainder of his term by investigating whether Clinton had applied for citizenship whil(e/st) at Oxford. One would hope that lessons would have been learnt, and efforts would be made to prevent the appearance

I don't recall US officials opining on how they would prefer the UK election to turn out, though they no doubt have opinions. I do remember Mrs Thatcher (PBUH) refusing to declare her preference on Larry King shortly after the Clinton's election, and saying only that he (Bill) was a great communicator. I'm sure she holds Clinton in the same degree of contempt that all reasonable people do, but she understood when silence is appropriate. Mrs. Thatcher has class.

Rifkin's comments, though, are another matter. To begin with, I think American culture is just fine. I'm curious to know what he would suggest as a "step forward" for Pakistani culture, both here in the UK and back in Pakistan. What about Toff culture?

Further, while I have no doubt he's seen many, many Hollywood movies, I'd like to know what in his background causes him to fancy himself an expert in American culture. Is he suggesting that he would reform the NHS to look more like Obama's health care plan (which even the New York Times says won't work) than McCain's? Does he share Obama's fear of involvement of the independent sector in education? I'm pretty sure both of those opinions constitute a departure from current Tory policy.

The supercilious attitude he's evincing is far more aggrivating (I just can't bring myself to say "offensive") than the statement per se. I grew up in the Deep South, and I never A) had people making racist smalltalk in a pub or B) had an avowed white supremacist elected official representing me until I moved to London. Yes, 50 years ago America was a horridly racist place. So was Britain. Does Britain need a head of government of a different hue? The wounds of class relations in Britain are very comparable to race relations in the US. Does he think the Tory party needs someone from a working class background (cough DD cough) to lead it?

I'm leaning to McCain, but sympathetic to Obama. I would probably vote for Obama, but 100% of Listerines* are supporting him, and that scares me off.

* Septic -> Septic Tank -> Yank, so an Anti-American is an Antiseptic -> Listerine.

American Republican - every country has a long history of making their opinions known either overly or discreetly. Individuals do that too.

Red Ken made deals for oil between London and Chavez. Mbeki has cosied up to Mugabe. Castro had his nutcase admirers too.

I don't like McCain hugely but I want a Republican returned. At what stage am I not allowed to have an opinion? As a Man on the Street? As a blog contributor? Or a blog writer? Local Councillor? County? MP? Lord? PM?

Where do you draw the line? I'm a staunch Republican but am struggling to see why you won't let me agree with you which I'm desperately trying to do. Or disagree if I wanted to.

"The symbolism of Obama is huge. The election of a black president would be such an enormous step forward for America's national history, and politics, its culture."

Right, OK, my respect for Sir Malcolm, which was never particularly high to begin with, just went through the floor. I thought the Tory Party was supposed to be above such PC tokenism and picking the best people, regardless of ticking demographic boxes. I'd love to see a black President someday--IF that person was actually the most qualified candidate, which for me as a conservative would mean at a minimum that they were a conservative. Since Rifkind is allegedly a conservative as well, that he disagrees with me on that point strikes me as fairly odd at the very least.

As for "American Republican," as an American Republican myself I'd like to take exception to his comments. Rifkind's comments aren't wrong because he's "interfering" in American politics: they're wrong because they're idiotic and incoherent for someone claiming to be a conservative politician to make.

Oh, and someone made a knight has not been "ennobled." Insofar as there is such a concept in the UK, only peers are nobility: even their families are legally commoners.

Will, you refer to "US Officials" commenting on UK elections which is an entirely different state of affairs to a former minister who will never hold office again expressing a view.

John Prescott, who may or may not be a clinically certifiable loon, opens his mouth every now and then (no jokes about food either in or out here please) but no-one takes him seriously even though he was DeputyPM.

Rifkind, who you imply in your post carries the equivalent clout of Baroness Thatcher or a junior civil servant "Official" in charge of paper clip ordering is fully entitled to his own view but it is only as a private Subject of the Crown.

My vote would, for what it's worth, have been for Duncan Hunter to have got the nomination.

Dave J - we caught each other mid-posting so sorry for the double post but you are 100% on the button.

Dave J @ 2:05
"I'd love to see a black President someday--IF that person was actually the most qualified candidate."
I completely agree!!

Geoff, you make a great point. Obama is not just "one of" the most left-wing senators, he has THE most left-wing voting record (even more left-wing than a self-proclaimed socialist senator.)

I'm another American Republican, but I don't have a problem with the Brits "interfering". I follow the Tory party over here in America, nothing wrong w/that either. I pretty much agree w/everything DaveJ said.

It would be rather exceedingly hypocritical for me to decry British "interference" in US politics as, after all, I worked as an intern in the CRD library at Smith Square during the semester I spent in London in late 1996.

McCain is sold out to the EU as regards his European views/ dealings. Obama doesn't give a damn about the EU. In my book that puts him ahead of McCain.

Likwise I would support an EU-hating left wing Labour MP over a europhile Conservative. Even though I am a Conservative, I am first and foremost anti-EU, and will accept anyone who rids us of the EU scourge.

I just don't buy that analysis tapestry. McCain's scepticism of the UN shows that he has some developing understanding of the weakness of multilateralism. Obama, in contrast, salutes the UN. He is going to be much more pro-EU than McCain.

If you don't take it from me, try seeing Dan Hannan about McCain's bizarre pro-EU views. HERE

where McCain tells Conservatives they have to stay with the EPP, which stood by them while they were in the wilderness.

Obama has made few quotes about the EU, only that it is 'good for the most part', implying that it is not entirely good - and maybe a bit of a curate's egg.

His suspicion of the Washington executive branch of government and all its ways would surely be parallelled in his views about Europe. I doubt he's a bureaucrat's delight.

Wouldn't it be more suitable to just call them "wets" rather than Obama-tories ?

What Dave J said.

And, quite apart from their sentimental and patronising take on the ‘colour issue’, some Conservative MPs have long had an uncritical view of left Democrats. George Trefgarne wrote of them in the Telegraph nearly four years ago:

“…if you talk to some of them [Tory MPs], you would be surprised how unapologetically Left-wing they are. On the evening I went canvassing last week, I had actually turned down a kind press invitation from the US embassy to attend an election night party in Grosvenor Square []. But it was reportedly full of Tory MPs, devouring the free hot dogs and sporting pro-Kerry and Democrat badges, even as the conservatives of America stormed to victory. The fact that the party's foreign affairs spokesman, Alan Duncan, had been on the radio to say he supported John Kerry lends credence to that tale.”

Can you not name them please - I am sure their associations would like to know. I wouldn't have thought many association chairmen would be Obama supporters.

What a surprise Sir Malcolm Rifkind is one of them?

To me Obama is all mouth and rhetoric but then I am not sophisticated and erudite enough to understand his appeal.

Geoff,

All US-officials are accountable to the elected executive, so there is nothing analogous to a British civil servant. Can you cite a single instance of a US official, of any rank, ex ante, on the record, declaring a preference on a UK election outcome? Rifkind may be on the back benches, but so is Ken Clarke, whose career from time to time rumored to return, lazarus-like, from the dead. The comparision to Baroness Thatcher was only to give an example of how this sort of thing has been handled in the past.

Even accepting the proposition that he was, in some sense speaking as a private citizen, how long after suggesting "steps forward" for "muslim culture" would Dave have him deselected?


Obama for me as well. The Republicans have lost their way. They need to lose. Just as the Tories needed to lose after 18 years. As for Obama being the most liberal voting record that is rather subjective because it depends how analysts describe liberal. In any case I've looked at most of his votes and unsurprising to me they are pretty much what any Tory MP would be voting for as well. And remember how Bush and McSame have become the big spenders, profligate wasters and corrupt to boot. I am thankful the Conservatives aren't the Republicans and I hope they never will be. Like it or not, and I like it, the Conservatives are far more to the left than the GOP. I'm reminded of the recent comments of Iris Robinson MP (DUP) who would be a perfect fit for the GOP.

That picture of Cameron looks rather like one of Hitlers posters!

Disappointing to see Tory MPs falling for the Obama hype. He is nothing more than a first term senator with a very modest record. Given the demographics, America is no more 'due' to have a black President than, say, Jamaica would be to have a white one.

McCain is starting to remind me of Bob Dole though, he is visibly creaking and is ten years past his sell by date.

If I were American, I would hold my nose and vote Obama. He may be left wing, but he would kill off the race baiting Jesse Jacksons and Al Shartons in a flash.

Its not the symbolism of a black president that is so important. Rather it is the destruction of the victim culture that would be important.

American Republican - I think it's a bit rich for an American to complain about foreign politicians interfering in a nations internal affairs!

The list of Obama supporters seems remarkably concurrent with the people who think we are the nasty party in need of hand-wringing apologies, of tielessness and of consensus with political opponents whose only wish is to see us dead, preferably soon.

In other words wets, modernisers and tossers generally.

What is the point of these people?

American Republican, isn't the obvious question to ask onenationtory whether he/she had a problem with the US interfering in the UK's internal affairs in 1917-18 and 1941-45? Not to mention Marshall Aid.....without which we would not have the "envy of the world" aka the NHS.

I've always been a committed Democrat - an not merely because they've come in recent years to be represented in Blue.

The American political spectrum is very different to the British, and more stark. The Republican Party is way, way, too unquestioningly Right for me, and always has been (though I would have supported Reagan in the circumstances, and I support Thatcher.)

But then, I'm a wet, so what would I know...

Come on Obama! Or should that be c'mon?

Treacle- every political party is a coalition and I think it is healthy in our party that we can have these types of debates without reverting to calling wets and modernisers "tossers." I beleive full-heartedly with the unnamed Tory MP in the article who believed that 90% of mainstream American politicians would fall into the category of British conservatives. Backing a Democrat does not make you any less of a committed Tory over here.

I am backing Obama because he has inspired me and my generation. It is quite something when hundreds of British teenagers and twenty-something publicly display "I'm backing Obama" signs on their facebook profiles etc. It is a shame for McCain who I think is a thoroughly decent and exceptional candidate. But Obama has inspired me and would represent a break with the past that we so desperately need.

Obama cannot be trusted. McCain can.

You guys make me laugh!
John McCain is going to take a thorough beating from Barack Obama.
Look at the facts; Mcain is almost 75 years old with a history of skin cancer, and so his health is in question. He sang 'bomb, bomb, bomb Iran' to a Beach Boys song and the only conclusion that can be drawn from that is that the man is obviously a complete imbecile.
He has little popular support apart from the type of fellow lunatics on this thread and he has even less grass roots support as well as no internet strategy.
Barack is an expert in voter registration so that means the republicans won't be able to rip off the black vote this time round.
McCain is a loser, end of story.
Obama is going to win convincingly so you guys better get used to it.
And show a bit more respect for the future President of the United States of America, Barack Obama. You just sound like a bunch of moaning losers.
That is probably because that is exactly what you are!

McCain is just another neo-conservative puppet like Dubya. Obama is a lightweight PR man - more Blair than Kennedy or even Bill Clinton. There is an alternative - former Republican congressman Bob Barr who is the Libertarian Party's candidate. Barr is polling 6% nationally and higher in key swing states. If you oppose neo-con war-mongering and torture, attacks on civil liberties and huge big government deficits, Barr is the only candidate worth voting for.

Libertarian,
Wise up. The reason the republicans have chosen the mad bomber McCain to stand is because they know they are going to lose the election.
Please try living in the real world instead of the la la land you are currently occupying.
Thank you.

Tim Hughes

You make serious points.. ones which I disagree with, but serious so I will respond in kind.

It's not a matter of the divergence of views that bothers me about the modern day Conservative Party, it is the number of Conservative MP's who seem to have no fixed political compass whatsoever and who seem to think that anything goes provided it makes 'our turn' in Government one week closer.

I literally dread a Cameron Government because I fear the desperation for change which Labour has stoked up will be betrayed, not deliberately, but just because too many of our senior politicians believe in nothing and taking the hard choices when you have no fixed principles is just too damned hard.

As for Obama, It is all subjective and you may be right, but I see a dead-eyed rabble rousing demagogue with a gift for rhetoric and a highly dubious past.. he actually scares me because I think he is false all the way through.. time will tell.

If his rhetoric has inspired you then is that not a measure of the poverty of public discourse in the UK? A Country where David Willetts is STILL held up as a mighty intellect despite the mass of evidence to the contrary?

As for tossers, does self-serving vanity-ridden third-raters of no fixed beliefs sound better??

Treacle,
Try not to be so negative. We must look beyond our own recent experiences with the liar Tony Blair and the dissembler Gordon Brown.
Reading your post was like walking through treacle, got anything positive to say or are you just a manic depressive?
Or are you a supporter of the mad bomber and loser, McCain?
Thought so.

Obama - man without a track record. Illinois Senate – nothing. US Senate nothing. A goffer in law firm.

Obama and wife handed in their law licenses - why? Clinton held his for 2 terms in White House. You don’t hand in your professional qualifications unless there is something wrong…

Sat for 20 years listening to Pastor Wright before– under extreme voter pressure – disassociating himself. Wright best buddies with Farrakhan (among other reasonable people).

Another close friend and sponsor (some would say surrogate father) now in prison for corruption.

No track record. No major achievements post university except to rise in the extremely murky waters (cesspit) of Illinois politics.

And Conservatives here are backing him?

Sorry average joe but I cannot support Obama for the reasons outlined by Lindsay Jenkins.

The Democrats are inept warmongers too. Clinton's disastrous intervention in Yugoslavia is a classic example.

If you support peace, freedom and limited government, the Libertarian Party is the only principled choice.

Libertarian,
you sound like a decent fellow, but all I can do is refer you to my previous post.
It is only wise to vote for a contender, your party and its candidates are not in contention.

Lindsay,
and George Bush's track record was?
Grow up Lindsay, you are backing a loser and the amount of bilge you pump out will not save your sinking republican party ship.
Too bad, so sad.
ps. How much are you being paid to post garbage like that?

"As for tossers, does self-serving vanity-ridden third-raters of no fixed beliefs sound better??"

Treacle- yes it does. Thank you.


American Joe

Well to be fair I don't like McCain either, they are dry aand flavourless and the vinegar rolls off...

I think the truth is that the Conservative Party in the UK broadly speaking lies somewhere between the Republicans and the Democrats. As a Conservative activist, I would tend to agree more with the Republicans on economic issues especially trade and would agree more with the Democrats on social issues seeing as the Conservative Party does not have the religious connections of the Republican Party which have alienated moderate voters.

On foreign policy it is now almost universally accepted in UK politics that military intervention in Iraq was a mistake and it is rather dispiriting to hear John McCain talk about American troops remaining in Iraq for the long haul.

However what has really done the Republican Party the most damage is the personality of President Bush. Whether the characterisation of Bush has been fair is highly debatable and lets remember even as far back as the 2000 election the British media were portraying Bush as the bad guy who stole the election away from the saintly Al Gore. Bush never really had a chance to be popular in the UK and Europe however he has succeeded in becoming deeply unpopular in the USA due to the fact that he is simply not impressive enough to be the leader of the free world and has presided over a weak American economy.

McCain should have been the Republican candidate in 2000 and Bush should have been sidelined. The Republicans are now going to rue the day that they decided to choose Bush over McCain eight years ago.

As for Obama he is desperately trying to shed his uber-liberal image and voting record and will undoubtedly track to the Centre as President which will be no bad thing. Lets hope he appoints a centrist Vice President like Hillary or Mark Warner as his VP.

Also it is worth remembering that American politics are more fluid than in the UK. It is quite normal for politicians belonging to one Party to endorse the candidate of the other eg Chuck Hagel, Joe Lieberman, Lincoln Chafey and Zell Miller.

In short, there are left wing Democrats who in British terms would be socialists and who we have nothing to do with eg Dennis Kucinich, Jesse Jackson and Ted Kennedy. Likewise there are some sensible moderate Democrats who would happily fit into the Conservative Party. In the Republican Party there are some sensible moderates who we should ally ourselves to and other firebrands who we should not go near. It should all be based on who the individuals are.


Admiring Obama is one thing but for a so-called "Conservative" to endorse him is quite appalling. Obviously they have no clue what his policies are like.

Treacle
Oh do make your mind up!
One minute you call those who think McCain is unfit to stand as tossers and the next minute you say McCain is a dry and flavourless.
Try and get your story straight before posting.
We have a saying in this country: "You cannot polish a turd"
Quit trying.

But that's the thing Andrew, noone really knows what Obama's policies are. He has shifted so much in recent weeks. He could be almost anything. I was at lunch yesterday with some columnists on major US national newspapers and they had no clear idea what kind of foreign policy Obama would oversee.

There are a few comments here that are personally abusive. I'll delete any that I see from now on. People should make serious arguments and not engage in name calling. Thank you.

COMMENT OVERWRITTEN.

Average joe - it is outrageous to suggest I am being paid for putting a view on Conservativehome – I wish! Editor will you review your policy please?

Editor,
No no, thank you for being so very sensitive to the feelings of others.
You do realize this is a political blog, don't you?
Maybe you are in the wrong game.
Maybe you should toughen up and not use such pitiful excuses for behaving in such a partisan manner.
Just a thought, no offence intended.

Average Joe

Try reading the posts first - I was and am commenting on the conservative politicians in this Country who support Obama and drawing a comparison with there actions within the UK Conservative Party.

I hold no views about McCain - except that his chips and dry and tasteless, sorry if our british sense of humour baffled you.

;-)

And I will leave you with this thought: both Gordon Brown and David 'EU' Cameron are begging like dogs to meet Mr Barack Obama during his flying visit.
I rest my case.

Editor- might be interesting to ask the next generation of Conservative MPs who they prefer in the latest one of your PPC surveys.

Michael McGowen - I wasn't saying that countires don't or shouldn't take an interest in what happens in other countries, or offer aid and/or assistance to other countires at times of need. What I was questioning was why American Republican felt that we/ senior Tories have no right to comment on internal affairs in America when they take an interest and have a say in the domestic affairs of other countries...

It just goes to show that even intelligent people fall for the media spin on Obama. He is little more then a better looking, slightly more left wing version of Tony Blair.


re: Michael McGowan

Posters on this site must realise that from now on he will be known as "The Sage", as he clearly owns intellectual copyright about all things American. Strange that he regards the word 'American' as a pejorative term, though ? Michael- we are not known as 'the Old Country' for nothing. Learn your history, the world was not created by Christopher Columbus 200 years ago.

re: Barack Obama

Accepting Bush's obvious shortcomings [and those of the Supreme Court], this guy is a political marshmellow, a figment of the liberal intelligensia's dreams, he does not even wear the trousers in his own home, his record as a legislator is non existent.

I know this is the Party that have us Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry, but surely Obama is the weakest of the lot ?

I find it difficult to see how anyone who calls himself a Conservative can support Obama. Big government, high-spending, welfarist -- haven´t we had enough of that?

@ Very Average Joe

Please explain what attracts you to Barack Hussein Obama ?

Duncan's comments about the Conservative Party resting somewhere between the Democrats on the left and the Republicans on the right is an interesting observation that I agree with.

I believe if Labour had never taken off, the left-wing Tories would be members of the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Party would more closely resemble the Republican Party. For me, the Tory Reform Group is a prefect example.

douglas carswell is completely wrong on Mccain. Mccain has a reputation against pork barrel spending in politics and is anti big government spending- to say he is a continuation of bush is an outright lie.

How any conservative can support Barack obama shocks me . This guy supports large amounts of government spending is anti free trade ,and pro giving the unions too much power.

oh and another question why is it acceptable to use Obama's colour of skin to say he'll be a great candidate -surely this shouldn't matter what so ever one way or the other .

Also with all the talk of racism towardsa obama , we ignore the larger amount of ageism in newspaper column's etc towards John Mccain -for example his age is used as a negative quality -there would be outrage if someone's colour of skin was used by the media as a negative quality -so why is ageism towards John Mccain acceptable.

to the comment of John Mccain belonging to wrong wing of republican party -yet still better than obama your ignoring that Mccain is not part of the religious right never has been - ie good friends with Rudy Giuliani and hated by ann coulter plus a member of the Republican main stream partnership.

obama is all rhetoric anyone can say hope change , hope change enough - and because of the absurd media space given to him - people are suckered in -that's another thing -mccain has been virtually blacked out by the world media - isn't this a sign of bias towards obama.

Obama would be a nightmare for the USA and the free World.

I simply don't believe that he will be able to persuade enough of the American electorate to vote for him, McCain will win.

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/010273.html

I saw this in the Washington Times:

Trinity United Church of Christ's Web site says its teachings are based on the black liberation theology of James H. Cone and his 1969 book "Black Theology and Black Power."

Cone's book states that:

What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.... black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy.

I did a google search for << cone site:http://tucc.org >>

and found this on the Talking Points page at the Trinity United Church website:

The vision statement of Trinity United Church of Christ is based upon the systematized liberation theology that started in 1969 with the publication of Dr. James Cone's book, Black Power and Black Theology.

Previously we had learned that Jeremiah Wright based his teachings on Cone's writings, but it wasn't established that Wright actually mentioned Cone by name in his sermons, so Obama might not have known about Cone. Now we find out that the church officially states that its teachings are based on Cone's. Is it a reasonable possibility that Obama didn't know for the last 20 years that Cone was the official source of Trinity's teachings? Is it possible that in 20 years he never looked up the book that was the main authority for the sermons of Obama's own beloved pastor Wright?

***

Is it possible that over twenty years Obama NEVER heard "Reverend" Wright's often anti-White, anti-semitic, anti-American sermons, when everyone else, including Wright says this type of talk was the norm?

Obama is not the post-racial candidate, he's the most racial candidate, although McCain is chasing him with his speeches to La Raza (The Race), the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), and AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee).

What would either of them say to an organisation devoted to the interests of White people? I think we know.

British 'conservatives' are no better. Like Labour, they serve the ethnic interests of everyone except the majority which ethnic group they despise - and even argue don't exist.

Roger Helmer wrote "I find it difficult to see how anyone who calls himself a Conservative can support Obama. Big government, high-spending, welfarist -- haven´t we had enough of that?"

Yes Roger. We have had enough of George W Bush's big government, high spending welfarism. McCain's record is similar and he is fanatically pro-EU and supports the Conservatives remaining in the EPP. So why do you support McCain - the Republican Ted Heath?

john mccain is not like george bush he is opposed to big government spending increases and pork barrel spending this is why his chief economist is the most anti big government person you can think of Phil gramm -he is opposed to farming and steel subsidies which bush is for .

Obama is even more big government than bush -he will spend more on health - where bush in education spent already too much -obama will increase it .

sure mccain not's great - he's not articulate enough on economic issues - my personal favourite candidate would have been giuliani-unfortunately he screwed up his campaign .

"We have had enough of George W Bush's big government, high spending welfarism. McCain's record is similar..."

No it isn't. Grow the hell up: saying something doesn't make it so, even as much as Obama keeps saying "third Bush term." I have my disagreements with McCain, but fiscal conservatism isn't one of them: he's a pork-buster who's proud of never taking a single earmark.

The history of elections from 1952 shows that Obama should win in November ie Eight years of a Republican President is followed by eight years of a Democrat(the only exception being Reagan in 1980). With that and also the democrats winning California(again from 1952 to 88 always Republican except 64) should mean that Obama will win. But McCain is doing a great job of winning the west(not including the pacific rim states) and the south that he is actually leading in terms of number of states(26 to 24)but behind in college votes(306 to 232). Three states look like the ones that will open the Whitehouse to him(Ohio,Virginia and New Mexico)and I hope that they do as he has shown to be someone who can talk to the other side(I thought we were in favour of doing this as well). Obama does not have a track record of doing this and with Ted becoming his guardian angel will not. I would say that its a shame that people here was not asked who they would have voted for if they had the full list of candidates on both sides.
Republican:Cox,Giuliani,Huckabee,Hunter,Keyes,McCain,Paul,Romney & Thompson.
Democrat:Biden,Clinton,Dodd,Edwards,Gravel,Kunich,Obama & Richardson. It seems that Geoff would support Hunter who at least could be said to have had two more years congress experience than McCain(but no high level bills that I know of?)What is everybody else view?. As for me like in 2000 McCain has to be the choice surprised that people call him a supporter of big government.

Peter- I can't agree with you that McCain is "doing a great job of winning the West". Recent polls have shown Obama ahead of McCain in Montana, Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico which are states that all normally vote Republican. McCain is holding his own in the Southern States but even there the Republican brand has been tarnished by Bush's unpopular presidency. McCain's hope has to be to focus on winning some Democrat-leaning States in the Mid-West notably Michigan and Wisconsin and perhaps New Hampshire to offset what are going to be loses in the West.

Dear Duncan: Firstly I did mention that he still needs to win New Mexico. Secondly the polls I've seen he is ahead in Montana and Nevada. Thirdly isn't Ohio in the same area as Michigan and Wisconsin, but he is closer to winning in Ohio than he is in the other two states. Finally he is doing a great job in winning if you look at the history of elections over the last 56 years only Reagan has broken the eight year cycle of elections before and McCain is close to doing that again this year, so hopefully will become President.

Just a quick update on the polls shows that McCain is ahead in 25 states(205 college votes) Ohio(20)its deadlevel, Virginia(13)Florida(27)& Colorado(9) McCain is only one point behind which puts John hopefully within a whisker of winning the whitehouse.

The comments to this entry are closed.

#####here####

ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:
      Name:
      Email:
      Subscribe    
      Unsubscribe 

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker