Conservative Home's debate blogs


  • DVD rental
  • Conservative Books
My Photo

Conservative blogs

Blog powered by Typepad

  • Tracker 2
  • Extreme Tracker

« A commercial break | Main | Q10: Technology or Kyoto? »



The British people have rightly made up their minds about Bush - he's a dangerous, semi-educated, religious lunatic. It may work in the US where 50% of the voters voluntarily describe themselves as 'born again Christains' but we must not allow our own party to be hijacked by these religious fantics and their agenda of illiberal hatred.

James Hellyer

"The fact that DD was stupid enough to say, in public, that he would have voted for the most unpopular US President the British people have ever formed a view about, will be music to the ears of the Labour party."

Whose leader and Chancellor are openly supportive of Bush and US foreign policy?



I'm afraid I didn't take Dr Fox's leadership campaign sufficiently seriously to pay any attention to his foreign policy.


It's a real shame more people didn't Gareth.



You're too harsh. Rationalism is rare in these troubled times and is always to be applauded where ever is rears its head.


That was the sound of your comment going straight over my head, I'm learning fast but please explain?


I'm guessing you're joking, so I won't.


No honestly - I don't get it. To clarify my comment I feel it was a real shame that more people didn't play closer attention to Liam Fox's campaign.
Then you accuse me of being harsh why?


Gareth, I'll pass over the connection with reality, or lack thereof, of describing President Bush as "a dangerous, semi-educated religious lunatic" who heads a party taken over by "religious fanatics and their agenda of illiberal hatred", and go to the one "factual" assertion you make: that "50% of the [US] voters voluntarily describe themselves as born-again Christians". Where did you get that "lunatic" (to use your words) number? It is SOOO out of line with every poll I've seen.

Simon C


Would you describe Christians in the parliamentary party like Caroline Spelman or David Liddington as being "religious fantics" with an "agenda of illiberal hatred"?

If so, I fear that reflects only on you.

You are a thoughtful and intelligent man, but that does not come across on your approach to this thread.

You would find too, if you had not allowed yourself to be blinded by your own prejudices, that Liam Fox's approach to foreign policy has won him plaudits across the political spectrum. His speeches are well worth reading. As I said on the platform blog, his approach has changed Conservative Foreign Policy for the better.


Hands down Cameron win.

I like President Bush, but Cameron gave the answer a future Prime Minister should give.


Bush's dirty politics over the years is all that needs to be said about his Presidency: if it's a threat, smear it anonymously. Every election since Texas 94 has the same tactics, even against his own side - remember the anonymous S Carolina phone calls to Republican voters claiming McCain was a lunatic/gay/had illegitimate black baby etc etc etc (sticks in my head especially, given how vastly superior McCain would have been).

Oh, and the minor fact that a Republican uses the government credit card about as responsibly as the laziest of socialist European governments did in the 70s.....

Al G

I think this tells us more about who we already thought was the better candidate than anything else.

I imagine I am the first person on this particular thread who thought their prefered candidate came off worse. Or at least, I would not be surprised if I am.

Cameron got this one.

Not that its that important to change anyone's opinion. Possibly a weak question, Editor?

Graham D'Amiral

Since electing the US president is a matter for the American people, who the contenders for the leadership of the British Conservative party would have voted for seems quite irrelevant. We have to be prepared to work with whoever the President of the day is regardless of whether they are a republican or a democrat.



Do you contend that the Republican Party has NOT been hijacked by religious fanatics?

Do you contend that its programme is not illiberal?

Do you contend that Bush is not semi-educated?



A quick Google will give you all the evidence you require. 50% of US voters describe themselves as born agains. The churches themselves suggest 40% of voters are actually born agains.


Bush is NOT a divisive figure in the UK.

EVERYBODY hates him.

During the last US election UK opinion polls where normally giving Bush 16-18% support.

Davis keeps putting his foot in it, this is the first time I've seen a man look less like a winner as the campaign has gone on.

Simon C


I will answer your questions once you have answered mine. You made a point about Christians in British politics, and I wanted to explore what you meant.

Selsdon Man

Gareth, the Republican Party has been hijacked by the neo-cons, not the Christian Right. An amazing large proportion of neo-cons are ex-Democrats and/or jewish (that is an observation not a anti-semitic comment).


I'm not sure I would say its been hijacked.

Bush's strength is that he built a coalition including the christian and neo-con elements as well as other traditional republican strengths.

Bush himself represents many facets of that coalition which is why he was able to rise to the top of the republican tree.


Gareth, the latest poll (the Harris poll of Oct. 20, 2005) puts self-described "born again Christians" at around 18% of the American population--not 50%. Anybody who has lived in America would agree that 18%, not 50%, is about the right figure.

I've seen what I think is your source for the 50% figure. It illustrates the danger of relying on a news article or internet posting about a poll, rather than the poll itself. The "Barna Group", an interest group, did a poll. The news stories on the poll claimed that it showed that 38% of Americans, and 53% of American voters, were "born-again Christians". Trouble is, if you read the actual poll, you'll find out that Barna never asked that question, and never even used the term "born-again" in their questions. Barna asked people generalized questions about religion, then put their own gloss in on who should be considered "born-again". In short, the poll was questionable, and the gloss put on the poll completely incorrect.

Lesson to be learned--go to the original source. Don't rely on media summaries.

The comments to this entry are closed.

About Conservative Home


  • Conservative Home's
    free eMailing List
    Enter your name and email address below: