Last-minute changes
- 29 Oct 08, 10:56 PM GMT
Atlanta International Airport, 29th October
It's been a fruitless day, waking well before dawn in Pennsylvania, and travelling to West Palm Beach, Florida where we were expecting a John McCain event.
In the end it was sealed off from all but the "pool" of reporters travelling with the Republican candidate. So now we're in transit yet again, heading back north where we hope to see John McCain again tomorrow. The sun's just setting over Atlanta airport, and we've still got to get to Ohio. Nineteen hours of travelling in all - assuming no delays!
In the last few days of these races it's often hard to know where the candidates will end up on any particular day.
They make last minute changes to the schedule, knowing that a visit to one place rather than another could win - or cost - votes.
In the meantime, are there some signs of desperation within the McCain camp in these closing days? Remember the row over robo-calls? Well if this report is right, they are being used in John McCain's home state of Arizona. That should be a safe state for him. He shouldn't need to use them there.
There's also been a lot of talk about an "October surprise", a possible curve-ball that might throw Obama off course.
It's getting late in the month, and I would have thought too close to election day to make any real difference, but
this has been brewing on conservative websites for a day now,
and shows signs of making it into at least regional newspapers. Fox are also covering it a lot.
A McCain spokesman last night accused the LA Times of deliberately suppressing a video of Barack Obama talking in favourable terms about an American-born Palestinian academic. The feeling I have is that many here have grown tired of these kind of reports, but perhaps one more link between Obama and that often misused and misleading word "terrorist" might change some minds?
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites
I’m Matthew Price, following John McCain’s presidential campaign. My colleague, Gavin Hewitt, is doing the same for Barack Obama.
Latest Photos
Clicking on any of these photos will take you to an external site.
Archive
« November 2008
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ||||||
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
| 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
| 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 |
Being Discussed Now
Latest: Reporters' blogs
|
Richard Black: |
|
|
Stephanie Flanders: |
|
|
|
- News Editors
- Sport Editors
- Journalism Labs
- BBC Internet Blog
- Radio 4 Blog
- Viewfinder
- dot.life
- Earth Watch: Richard Black
- Ethical Man
- Fergus on Flu
- India Election Train
- James Reynolds' China
- Justin Webb's America
- Magazine Monitor
- Mark Easton's UK
- Mark Mardell's Euroblog
- Mihir Bose on Sport
- Nick Bryant's Australia
- Nick Robinson's Newslog
- NI: The Devenport Diaries
- Open Secrets
- Peston's Picks
- Razia's Arthouse
- Scotland: Blether with Brian
- Scotland: Douglas Fraser's Ledger
- Stephanomics
- Wales: Betsan's Blog
- 5 Live Breakfast
- Daily Politics: Andrew Neil
- Newsnight
- Newsnight: Michael Crick
- Newsnight: Peter Marshall
- Newsnight: Paul Mason
- Newsnight: Mark Urban
- Newsnight: Susan Watts
- PM programme (iPM)
- Today: Evan Davis
- Today: Tom Feilden
- Working Lunch: Declan Curry
- World Tonight: Robin Lustig
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~20~RS~)
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
You travelled for 19 hours to tell us that?
Perhaps you should consider global warming instead - there's nothing new here.
Save the environment instead, much more fruitful.
Complain about this comment
John McCain personally helped fund the group Kalidi helped found. If anyone needs to explain their connection to Rashid Kalidi it's John McCain.
Complain about this comment
mcain has lost. full stop, as the americans say.
Complain about this comment
Like many in the media here in the U.S., Matthew is picking up the McCain/Republican accusation about Obama's ties to Rashid Khalidi without acknowledging McCain's own ties to Khalidi. According to the IRS, the International Republican Institute (IRI), which McCain has chaired since 1993, gave the organization that Khalidi founded, the Center for Palistinian Studies, about $450,000 for work it was doing polling in the Gaza Strip. Isn't that pure hypocrisy?
Complain about this comment
Seems like desperation that may well backfire. Under McCain's chairmanship the International Republican Institute repeatedly, over the course of many years,
funded an organization Khalidi founded, the Center for Palestine Research and Studies with grants totalling over half a million dollars.
Complain about this comment
If there is any "October Surprise" I'm sure it would be completely fabricated, and at this point I wouldn't be surprised if the Bush Admin's found a way to rig the election. We already know they have the ability.
Complain about this comment
Look, the problem with Obama is that he has far too many nefarious assiciations. Even a blind man could connect these dots! The man has been marinating in radical, socialist associations for the last 20 years! It doesn't really matter if John McCain as a member of a government panel signed off on funding for Khalidi's group to conduct academic research studies. That's a far cry from personally associating with Khalidi and admitting in your memoirs that he has opened your eyes on several issues involving the Palestinian question. Maybe if this was Obama's ONLY radical association, I might not have a problem with it; however, he has dismissed far too many radical associations by saying things like, "He was just a guy in the neighborhood," or "I didn't know that side of him". Either Obama is the most ignorant, unlucky individual with poor judgement on the planet or there is a lot more to these associations than he is willing to admit. Just look at the title of one of Obama's memoirs Dreams of My Father. Well, if you look at Obama's father's dreams (see link below) and couple that with these radical socialist associations, I think it becomes pretty clear where Obama really stands on issues, despite the moderate isage Obama presents to the American public. I think time will tell the truth of the story, and I do not think it will be a story which favors Obama.
About Obama's Father: http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=303952499910291&kw=like,father,like,son
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Obama has debated racism in the media - both black and white.
But the BBC won't post its repetition here.
At least he was balanced in his opinion (on that point.)
Looks like the BBC is not into dealing with fact. How sad is that?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Illegal wars of cowardly aggression, a failing economy, and a crumbling health care system. It better be a pretty big October surprise.
Complain about this comment
McCain's leadership style is what got his campaign for president into trouble. He reacts to all things with a knee jerk response and then follows it up with an equally over-the-top counter-knee jerk soon after he realizes his error. First the economy was fundamentally strong, then it was fundamentally in a crisis. First he picked Palin on a whim and made a grand spectacle of it. Days later he's playing Hide-and-seek-Sarah with the MSM while claiming she's so, so qualified. This is why the description of him as being 'erratic' carries so much weight - he really IS erratic. And neither the USA nor the rest of the world needs his instability right now or at any time in the future. There won't be any October surprise in favor of McCain - October's over, just like McCain's campaign.
Complain about this comment
This only shows that to be the President of the United States you have to side with Israel. How can we expect US to be an honest broker in the peace process dealing with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict if the President is already a committed friend of Israel? It only proves the power of AIPAC over the outcome of any Presidential race in the Unites States.
Complain about this comment
That may be the October Surprise but I expect something more.
One thing to note on that story: I was listening to my LA radio news station this evening, and they said that the only reason McCain knows about the "controversial" tape is that the LA Times reported it BACK IN APRIL. The McCain campaign chose to bring it up now-- an 11th hour scare tactic. Yawn.
Complain about this comment
Imagine running for President after 8 years of war, economic strife, cronyism you name it.
But you can only eek out a measly few percentage points over the party that brought the 8 years of misery.
Obama should be at 98%.
The media says he is doing well - considering what help he's had from 8 years of bush he'd doing very, very badly.
Oh, did I mention Obama got a great deal on his house from a felon, so he won't be losing his? And then his wife went to buy more land from the same family - well below market value of course.
That's old DC at its finest.
Complain about this comment
OldSouth -- interesting that you ask if you'd "pal around with Pinochet".
That would be John McCain:
http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2008/10/blog-mccain-met.html
Unless, of course, you think these guilt-by-associations are overblown?
Complain about this comment
Sorry SirDaav, totally agree, but it's my job.
Complain about this comment
it is often said that when you are explaining alot ,then you are losing.John McCain has more ties to this man than Obama.Besides, John said he was proud of his relationship with Gordon Liddy a convicted felon who broke into the democratic headquarters back in the 70s.why has the press not asked him to explain the extent of his relationship with this ex-felon?
Well, i'm glad Obama has bought more air time to talk to the American people about his policies.I wish John McCain could tell the American people how his policies will be different from those of Bush which has put the country into this mess.
Complain about this comment
You know is a saying in US "BIRDS with FEDARS ,FLOCK/FLY TOGETHER " and "WITH WHO YOU ARE ,THAT WHAT YOU BECOME ", so go and figure WHO is WHO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Complain about this comment
OldSouth wrote: "If, as is alleged, Obama was born in Kenya, he cannot serve, even if elected."
Why not? Article 2 of the Constitution says you must be a natural-born American to serve as president. It doesn't say you have to actually be born IN America. Being born on US soil is an easy way to automatically be an American citizen, but it isn't the only way. Plenty of Americans are born overseas for one reason or another, and yet are "natural-born" citizens from birth -- I'm one. Born in Germany to American parents -- thus I was automatically an American citizen. John McCain is one, too. He wasn't born in the US, either, but in the Panama Canal Zone!
Let me quote what's on the back of my Department of State-issued Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America --Section 301(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act --
"The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States...."
Since Obama's mother was an American, it wouldn't matter what his father was or where she decided to go into labor-- she would still have been able to confer her citizenship on him, just as my parents conferred theirs on me. The only way she would not have been able to is if she herself had not met the 10-year US residency requirement prior to giving birth to him -- and she most certainly did.
Complain about this comment
#3 full stop, as the americans say.
Surely, that's 'Period'.
Matthew, as you know, Fox would cover it. Never in my life have I seen such an overtky biased TV 'news' station.
'Fair and balanced' - my a$$!
Complain about this comment
@OldSouth -
It's a bit late in the year to be still believing that stuff about Obama. A hint for the next election - use the fact checkers websites. They check the facts for you and provide all the evidence as well. That way, you won't be stuck believing the spin-doctors' web of lies and end up voting against your own future.
Obama was born in Hawaii - it's fact, and his birth certificate has been seen and authenticated by fact checkers. Besides, there's no logical reason to believe otherwise. Obama's mom, a white American, was studying in Hawaii where she met Obama's father. She eventually gave birth to Obama right there in Hawaii. How could it then be logical to think that Obama's white mother would have any reason to travel all the way from Hawaii, where she was a university student, to Kenya, simply to have a baby? And even if she did that, baby Obama would have still been American because his mother was. Then add that to the fact that Obama is a Senator and any problem with nationality would have barred him from becoming one. There's simply no logic in continuing to believe this claim that Obama isn't American. And would you be surprised to learn that McCain was actually born in Panama to an American mother?
Regarding Obama's economic policy of increasing taxes on the rich. What's wrong with taxing CEOs and super rich fat cats that have been making huge profits by shipping US jobs to China? Yes, the rich in America have made serious cash in the last 8 years by selling out the middle class. Bush's tax cuts made wealthy investors wealthier, and they then turned around and invested in companies that were making the most profits - the ones closing up shop in the US and doing their manufacturing in China, where people work for peanuts. This policy of 'welfare for the rich' has hurt middle class Americans like never before, because the trickle-down economics has been causing money to trickle away with the jobs. And to make matters worse, the Bush government then went and borrowed some of this same wealth from China to finance a military takeover of Iraq's oil supply. So now we have Chinese money funding the Iraq war, and America sinking into huge debt.
Small businesses will actually benefit from Obama's economic plan because it provides incentives for these businesses to increase hiring. In fact, non-partisan economists have already concluded that the overall effect of all Obama's measures for small business would be a tax reduction. Job creation is the key to getting America back on its feet. You believe that taxing the wealthy CEOs an extra 2-3%, as Obama plans to do, will cause businesses to crumble? Have you seen the pay packets of these guys? Please. The biggest problem for big companies (other than the credit crisis) is the fact that the little guy on main street has no money because he doesn't have a job and is in major debt. Without money in the hands of main street, the big companies have no customers, does no business. No business means no company profit; no profit means layoffs and a vicious cycle ensues, encompassing the small companies as well. That's why economists are backing Obama. His plan actually makes sense, and it was all part of his campaign policy long before the economic crisis became dire.
A little less reliance on campaign talking points and mysterious-sounding chain letters will do you a world of good. Make use of http://www.factcheck.org/ so that you won't be manipulated by fake talking points in the future.
Complain about this comment
This is true. I am currently living in Arizona and have received two calls from the RNC in the last 24 hours. Things must be getting pretty desperate.
Complain about this comment
Many of the polls in last few previous elections have been dead wrong. I do believe it's much closer than many would prefer. In the USA, the pendulum swings back and forth usually every 8 years; but nothing really changes.
After Bush's 8 years, stock market collapse, war, ect; Obama should be ahead by 20 points but he is not. Any thinking person would realize that this election is a toss up.
Like it or not, race on both sides, Obama's extreme left wing ideology, McCain's closeness to big business will influence the election.
I think many people are also rethinking how they will vote. Do they want somebody who will raise everybody's taxes and spend like crazy (I stopped believing promises years ago, I look at their past record) and who has kept questionable company? Do they want somebody who will see the rich get richer while the middle class disappears and the poor get poorer? Personally, I don't think Americans will embrace socialism as fast as Europeans have. I can't wait until it's all over and I spend less time watching all the politicals; every last one of them are crooks anyway.
Complain about this comment
You must be getting really bored with this election campaign to have to resort to such drivel.
Anyway, seeing as your desperate for a coup, here's one for you. Apparently, John McCain spent time in Hanoi during the Vietnam War being feted by the communists! Sure, he says he was a prisoner, but can we really believe him? Was he shot down or did he defect? Personally, I'm convinced he's a commie pinko in disguise, just as Obama is a muslim Israel-hating terrorist.
Same logic, same nonsense!
Complain about this comment
"Do not fight verbosity with words: speech is given to all, intelligence to few."
Complain about this comment
October surprise if there is one will be another stupid lie. If mccain's campaign had anything real they would have used it already. The election polls are close only because many white Americans are afraid to support a superior man if he is black.
Complain about this comment
Post #10; OldSouth wrote: "This question will not go away, even if Obama wins, because it goes directly to the question of his integrity and judgment. Even if he wins, he has to govern, and the President is able to do that if he has a floor of trust beneath his feet.
Folks, the PLO of Arafat has the blood of thousands of innocents on its hands! It hijacked airliners, planned the Munich Olympics outrage, sent suicide bombers into pizza parlors, and has spread anti-Semitic hatred wherever and whenever possible.
Where is the memory of this man and his record in our culture? What kind of man must Khalidi be, to serve as a spokesman for Arafat and the PLO?"
Firstly, we don't even know what's on that tape yet. So stop making stuff up.
Secondly, Khalidi is on the public record as having *denounced* terrorist attacks by Palestinians.
Thus:
>>
He is seen as a moderate in Palestinian circles, having decried suicide bombings against civilians as a "war crime" and criticized the conduct of Hamas and other Palestinian leaders.
>>
Source: http://tinyurl.com/67fsog
Secondly, if Khalidi is such a terrible person, why did John McCain donate $448,873 to Khalidi's Center for Palestine Research and Studies in 1998, and $389,621 in 1999?
Obama has not given *ANY MONEY* to this man's organisation, but John McCain thought it was a good idea to give Khaladi nearly $1 MILLION. Can you tell me why?
Incidentally, Drudge took this story off his website when he discovered the McCain connection. I guess that says it all.
Complain about this comment
You ask: "The feeling I have is that many here have grown tired of these kind of reports, but perhaps one more link between Obama and that often misused and misleading word "terrorist" might change some minds?"
By now, I imagine, most people have figured out that Obama is fiscally conservative and has a great deal of judgment, and that the McCain campaign simply has a list of "attack" points that they are unpacking to perform their McCarthyite character assassination. And I would like to ask: Where is the beef?
This latest one (Palin can't even pronounce the prof's name correctly, so obviously she knows nothing about the story, it has been fed to her) has a twilightzone absurdity to it. If the campaign goes on much longer, the McPalin ticket will be accusing Obama of courting Al Capone, because he lives in Chicago.
In fact, this all makes McCain look even more like Elmar Fudd trying to shoot that duck, and Palin like a real bot, which she, at least, is. McCain hasn't figure out yet, with ample ecvidence, that each time one of those accusations pop out, he drops support. Yowboy lore: "If yer in a hole, stop digging!"
Fershere.
Complain about this comment
I live in an "independent" household in Arizona and received a McCain robocall today, just as described in your link. I expect they are targeting independent voters. I found it profoundly shocking, and it lessened my respect for McCain. Suppose in the future a crisis struck, and President McCain died of a heart-attack, in what way would the new President Palin's level of experience be any better than Obama's?
Complain about this comment
#10 OldSouth
I despair of ever getting a hard line US citizen to comprehend the problem because they, and in this case, that's you OldSouth are the problem. This whole Israeli = good, Palestinian = bad equation is just plain wrong.
You quote various murders carried out by Palestinian related groups over many years while totally failing to take any notice of the more than 10,000 Palestinian and Arab deaths brought about by Israeli actions during those years.
The Jewish occupation of Palestine was a huge mistake brought on by feelings of guilt resulting from the holocaust. The US Britain and France gave away Palestinian land with no thought as to what was to happen to the indigent population. The result we are all to well aware of. To quote a very well phrased question.
Six million Jews died in the holocaust. Of that there is no doubt, but did the Palestinians do it? The answer to that is obviously NO. The next question is. Why should the Palestinians pay the price? The only just answer to that is that they shouldn't.
Millions of Palestinian refugees are not going to simply disappear. They are not going to be satisfied with living in camps for ever. The behaviour of the Israelis in annexing more and more land is adding more fuel to the flames.
The US continually stokes the fires of this injustice with it's massive support of Israel and Israel's illegal actions. The US gives 30% of it's foreign aid budget to Israel. Why? Are the Israelis that poor? No of course not, it's so that they can buy more weapons to kill more Arabs. It's small wonder that the Arabs hate the US. The words of the reviled Rev Wright are true. As a nation the US created the circumstances that led to the attack of 11th September 2001. You even trained Osama bin Laden.
OldSouth just for once don't shoot the messenger listen to the message.
Complain about this comment
#26 Zhurh1
Just a few thoughts re your post the first being a little look at the "American Dream"
In his book 'Epic of America' your historian writer James Truslow Adams coined the phrase "The American Dream" and went on to say "it is that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement. It is a difficult dream for the European upper classes to interpret adequately."
As a member of the European middle classes I comprehend it perfectly. It is one of the most skillful confidence tricks ever performed, it encompasses an entire nation in a massive act of self deception.
It might have been true in 1931 but since the 1970's the middle class and working class of the US have worked harder for longer hours to stand still in real economic terms. Every so often one of the millions breaks free and becomes one of the rich and you all stand around pointing and saying "see it works it's the American Dream"
In the meanwhile the rest of you continue on the treadmill, the richer get even richer and the treadmill keeps speeding up as you pay for their obscene wealth. Get real you people it's a con and you are being conned. Forget 'socialism' and all these other emotive words they are just a clever way of diverting your attention from the facts. "Trickle down" never worked, taxing the rich is not all bad, taxes are not all bad. Your health care system is one of the worst in the developed world and one of the most expensive. Stop being taken in by 'emotive' words, start thinking and start looking around the rest of the world.
Complain about this comment
33. T1m0thy wrote:
"The US Britain and France gave away Palestinian land with no thought as to what was to happen to the indigent population. "
Actually this is incorrect. The original plan was to form the state of Israel from only those territories which were predominanlty inhabited by Jews. It would have produced a 'patchwork' looking state on the map.
This proposal was rejected by the Arab neighbors. Not the Security Council (let's not try to pin it all on the western Powers, even the USSR was "Israel" friendly at the time). The neighbors rejected the creation of any state in the region which was not Islamic.
Complain about this comment
"mccain has lost. full stop, as the americans say"
No they don't, they say "period"
Complain about this comment
"The feeling I have is that many here have grown tired of these kind of reports, but perhaps one more link between Obama and that often misused and misleading word "terrorist" might change some minds?"
More left wing BBC bias and breaking of the requirement to be impartial.
Personally, the word that is often misused and misleading is "militant"
Complain about this comment
Post #33; T1m0thy wrote: "The Jewish occupation of Palestine"
I think you mean "the return of the Jews to their historic homeland, previously renamed 'Palestine' by the Romans but now known by her correct name of 'Israel'".
"was a huge mistake brought on by feelings of guilt resulting from the holocaust".
No. The decision to rebuilt the Jewish state and assist the Jews' epic return to their homeland was made by the British in the early 20th Century with the announcement of the Balfour Declaration in 1917. This was many years before WWII. Guilt had nothing to do with the case; it was a matter of justice for the Jewish people, who have suffered more persecution and oppression than any other nation on earth.
"The US Britain and France gave away Palestinian land with no thought as to what was to happen to the indigent population".
They did not give away any Palestinian land. In fact, there was no "Palestinian land" to give away, since the term "Palestinian" was simply being used in reference to *all* inhabitants of Israel, whether Jews or Arabs. There is no race, tribe or nation of people called "Palestinians", and never has been; the term is geographical, not ethnic or racial.
Moreover, Britain actively encouraged the migration of Arabs to Israel at various times following the Balfour Declaration, allowing them possession of lands which had not historically belonged to them.
Finally, many local Arab landowners quite happily sold property to the Jews, who subsequently developed it into productive farmholdings.
There can be no doubt that Israel has since conducted a brutal campaign of state-sponsored terrorism against the Arab refugees who now call themselves "Palestinians", and there should be no argument that Israel must be punished by sanctions, embargos or whatever measures are necessary to redress the balance. If she will not comply with the UN resolutions and peace accords voluntarily, the world must compel her to do so.
But to say that Israel is simply a product of post-WWII guilt is to slander every nation involved in the process, overlook the famous United Nations vote in favour of rebuilding the Jewish state, deny the Jewish right to their historic homeland, and ignore the plain facts of history.
Complain about this comment
It doesn't matter who gets in........All politicians everywhere are corrupt, abuse power, look out for themselves.....PERIOD!
Complain about this comment
"are there some signs of desperation within the McCain camp in these closing days?"
I think you pre-empted your own question with your opening remarks about his media event being closed to all but the official "pool" of reporters. That doesn't seem like a sign of confidence to me.
And how come the BBC reporter assigned to following the McCain campaign doesn't get let into that "pool"? Is it for Americans only? How inclusive!
I can only commend you for your balance - if I'd got up before dawn to travel somewhere only to be turned away by the bouncers, I'd have made some much more negative comments. But why bother, when he's going to go down in history as a loser anyway?
Complain about this comment
The biggest mistake, I think, that McCain made was to select, on a whim, Sara Palin to be his running mate. Not only is she not qualified but she is also power hungry and has huge delusions of grandeur. Now she is positioning herself as the potential next Republican candidate for president; that is truly delusional. If if gven half a chance she will be 10x worse than Goerge Bush. Does American want a chorus girl for president?
Complain about this comment
I was about to write an essay but #33 is close enough to what I'm thinking. The US's mindless, unquestioning, hypocritical and ignorant support for Israel IS the problem in the Middle-East - and in fact problably the keystone in the whole Islamic extremist/terrorist problem globally.
Israel has been illegally occupying land in defiance of the UN since the sixties and the US does absolutely nothing but praise it and give it money. Iraq occupied... oh yes that's right - nothing - and look where we are now.
I am not especially anti-Israel per se, and I don't blame (the majority) of its people for political acts of the past, or of its leaders today. However the complete lack of balance in the US's approach to the Middle East is grotesque, and Israel's behaviour is generally bullying and guaranteed to ensure there will not be peace in the region - or for the rest of us in the western world.
If Obama did say "Israel has no God-given right to occupy Palestine", then he has just risen higher in my estimations. Courage indeed - I'd like to think one day he has the chance to stand by his statement and drive change in the US's sycophantic approach to the country.
In the long run it will be to the benefit of ordinary Israelis too - for as long as it is allowed to behave as Americas 51st and most favoured state, its people - and the rest of us - are destined for further troubles.
Complain about this comment
I am sure that there have been many comments attributable to Obama about 'non Americans', but if you care to check out the comments of the Rev Dr Manning ( an African American preacher ) per the attached website, you might be interested....?
Please at least see the first 10 minutes but ALL of the ' Sermon' is mindblowing
WOW!!!!! You need to watch at least the first 10 minutes!!!! This a
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
#39 Sankari
I think you mean "the return of the Jews to their historic homeland, previously renamed 'Palestine' by the Romans but now known by her correct name of 'Israel'".
The only problem I have with that is, that if used as a precedent the current world order is in dire trouble. The 'Native Americans, 'Australian Aboriginals' descendants of the Mayas, Incas etc etc all have much more recent and clearly provable claims to lands occupied by force by ethnic Europeans. Where would this stop?
Thank you, however, for a reasoned response to my original post I would love to take this further but now have to work. Maybe some other time.
Complain about this comment
#38 - interesting... so when will the US be re-establishing the native American lands in their entirety, handing them back to their rightful original owners, letting them steal a good chunk more just for the hell of it, and then equipping them with the latest weapons so they can fight off all comers?
If you could jusssst see the absurdity of any argument based on what something was called or who might have been there before those nasty Romans renamed it... TWO THOUSAND YEARS AGO...
Complain about this comment
Well, if Obama is more pro-Palestinian than he's letting on, that can only be a good thing.
The prospect of America finally becoming an 'honest broker' of peace in the Middle East is one that we should all look forward to with hope - a removal of the unconditional support for Israel's occupation and illegal settlement of the territories could finally bring some common sense to the negotiating table, and a change in the US stance might allow some UN resolutions with teeth to be brought in.
More power to him, I say.
Complain about this comment
I suspect the Khalidi issue is just the run up to whatever the next smear will be assuming Bush doesn't supply the surprise with a manufactured incident.
I wonder how many people realize Khalidi is a natural born US citizen of Palestinian decent? Problem not many, but he has one of those "strange, foreign" names so people will think otherwise. Khalidi himself said he and Obama don't agree with respect to their views on Israel, but unfortunately when people throw out lies and smears, the truth takes some time to catch up.
No, if there is going to be a hoped for "game changer" from the Palin-McCain campaign it while likely come out Friday or Saturday so the truth wouldn't have time disseminate before Tuesday.
We will just have to wait and see, but at this point I wouldn't put anything past the Palin-McCain campaign. Win at all costs. Election first, country last.
Complain about this comment
Of course, mcCain, with his withering campaign, has once again dug up some non-issue. There is a flaw here that is so glaring, it is unbelievable.
1) Obama said "finding common ground" in the video... quite clearly.
How do McCain and Palin Does expect to achieve any peace if we can only dialog with people who lick our boots? Under McCain we will no longer enter into a meaningful dialogue with people who may have real grievances. After all, the bombs and bullets that have killed Palestinians often have "Made in USA" written on them, and I do not mean this in a figurative sense. (I say this as a person who has lost family to the Nazis so don't come with all that phony pro-Israel trash.)
Peace in the Middle East is desperately needed for the safety of Israel, and the Bush-McCain bombing diplomacy hasn't worked. If Obama intends to dialogue with the Palestinians, well great, he may have a better chance at achieving something than McCain or even Palin, who believes that a war in the Middle East will bring on Armaggedon and then Rapture.. Thanky You Palin, but no thanks, I love my kids too much?.
2) It proves what an abominable strategist McCain is. Obama knew the Ayers business and this one would draw the attack dogs. I am sure of it, and McCain and Palin fell right into the trap. Their campaign has done their once a week character assassination trick, and meanwhile, each time, Obama's presence in the polls goes up. Because they are non-issues. This is worthy of SunTzu.
So tell me, rightwingers, how is McCain going to negotiate with real pros in the outside world if he falls into such simple traps?
Complain about this comment
I give you the headline at Reuters:
"profit surges 71 percent"
Thank you George Bush, if McCain wins, we will also be thankful. Especially Governess Palin, whose retirment will be as secure, if not more, as Ted Stevens'.
Oh, there is another GOP special. He took bribes from the oil industry, is guilty as charged, but it's the prosecutors' fault and the liberal media. And so, as a good role model, he is now continuing to run.
Do these people have no scruples whatsoever? They are telling young people:"Hey, greed, corruption, no responsibility, is great, you see, I got rich on it and didn't even have to pay."
That's why I like Obama. He seems to understand self-reflection, and that makes him a genuinely compassionate individual.
If McCain wins, Joe the Plumber will have seen the last of his interest and curiosity. Believe me.
Complain about this comment
"Shell profit surges 71 percent" that should be, of course.
Complain about this comment
"It's socialism, stupid".
People keep telling the pollsters one thing, but in the cold light of the polling booth the X may go into a different box
Complain about this comment
Tim0thy writes:
"There is no race, tribe or nation of people called "Palestinians", and never has been; the term is geographical, not ethnic or racial."
The Philistines ("prsti" in Egyptian records) had cultural similarities to the Myceneans, and may have come from Crete. They were expelled from Egypt in the 12th C BCE and settled along the coast of Canaan. They expanded into the hills and may have assisted David in his revolt against Saul. Later, when he had established control over Judah etc., he defeated the Philistines and they reverted to occupancy of the coastal strip. They interbred with other races and their ethnic identity was lost some time during the first millennium BCE. Philistia remained a geographical region into Roman times. This region (overlapping with the present Gaza strip) was not under Jewish control at any time before the 20th C CE.
Complain about this comment
Re: jw2034's comment - surely the Americans would say 'period'?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Post #44; T1m0thy wrote: "#39 Sankari
I think you mean "the return of the Jews to their historic homeland, previously renamed 'Palestine' by the Romans but now known by her correct name of 'Israel'".
The only problem I have with that is, that if used as a precedent the current world order is in dire trouble. The 'Native Americans, 'Australian Aboriginals' descendants of the Mayas, Incas etc etc all have much more recent and clearly provable claims to lands occupied by force by ethnic Europeans. Where would this stop?"
No. The situation is comparable, but not equivalent.
Firstly, unlike the native tribes you mention, the ancient Jews had their own established state with their own established laws. They comprised a Jewish nation; a recognised independent country, not a loose collection of warring, stateless peoples.
Secondly, that Jewish state stood for nearly 1,000 years, despite invasion and occupation by the Egytians, Syrians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks and Romans. It continued to exist (under combined Gentile/Jewish governance) until the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70.
Even after this, the Jews continued to maintain a presence in the land; they continued to reside in their nation (though they were no longer able to govern it), they continued to own property in it, and they successfully preserved their historic cultural identity.
"Thank you, however, for a reasoned response to my original post I would love to take this further but now have to work. Maybe some other time".
My pleasure.
Post #45; steve081974 wrote: "#38 - interesting... so when will the US be re-establishing the native American lands in their entirety, handing them back to their rightful original owners, letting them steal a good chunk more just for the hell of it, and then equipping them with the latest weapons so they can fight off all comers?"
This argument is flawed, for the reasons I have given above.
"If you could jusssst see the absurdity of any argument based on what something was called or who might have been there before those nasty Romans renamed it... TWO THOUSAND YEARS AGO..."
You are completely misrepresenting me. Please read what I have written. My argument is not "based on what something was called or who might have been there before those nasty Romans renamed it... TWO THOUSAND YEARS AGO..."
My argument is based upon the Jews original and continual ownership and occupancy of their historic homeland; in short, it is based upon the same principles which underpin the United Nations vote for the re-establishment of the Jewish state.
If you want to argue with me, please address my argument. Don't attack straw men.
The Arab Palestinians are not indigenous to Israel, having mostly drifted there during the Ottoman and British occupations. Israel is not their native homeland, and their connection to it is very recent.
They are entitled to the occupancy and ownership of any land legally purchased or otherwise transferred to them. However, they need to recognise that the state of Israel belongs to the Jewish people. The Arab Palestinians are residents of the land, and owners of property within it. But Israel as a whole, does not belong to them.
Complain about this comment
Post #52; kenmus99 wrote:
Tim0thy writes: ""There is no race, tribe or nation of people called "Palestinians", and never has been; the term is geographical, not ethnic or racial"".
That was actually written by myself; Tim0thy was quoting me.
"The Philistines ("prsti" in Egyptian records) had cultural similarities to the Myceneans, and may have come from Crete. They were expelled from Egypt in the 12th C BCE and settled along the coast of Canaan. They expanded into the hills and may have assisted David in his revolt against Saul. Later, when he had established control over Judah etc., he defeated the Philistines and they reverted to occupancy of the coastal strip. They interbred with other races and their ethnic identity was lost some time during the first millennium BCE. Philistia remained a geographical region into Roman times. This region (overlapping with the present Gaza strip) was not under Jewish control at any time before the 20th C CE."
This is all very interesting, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the Arab Palestinians, who by their own admission originate from the Arab states which comprise Israel's (largely hostile) neighbours, and therefore have a mixed ancestry and ethnicity.
There is no uniquely "Palestinian" language, history, culture or ethnicity and there was never an Arab Palestinian state.
Complain about this comment
What a "fruitless" article! Titled "October Surprise" (tantalizing indeed), the article goes on to basically recall the reporter's unsuccessful attempts to see McCain at a rally. Note to reporter: if there's no new news to report, don't bother to report it!
Complain about this comment
"Israel has no God-given right to occupy Palestine". Why should this be such a contoversial statement? Oppressing people in the name of fairy-tales is surely controversial.
Complain about this comment
#55 Sankari
#56 and #55
Back from work for a few minutes and your post above got my attention
"Firstly, unlike the native tribes you mention, the ancient Jews had their own established state with their own established laws. They comprised a Jewish nation; a recognised independent country, not a loose collection of warring, stateless peoples"
I hardly think the Mayan, Aztecs or Incas come under a loose collection of warring stateless peoples. Your definition of ownership is certainly ethnocentric European. Just because the native Americans and the Australian aboriginal tribes didn't organise in our way doesn't make their claim to land in anyway less valid.
Secondly your statement about the 1000 year Jewish state seems to be completely at odds with
#52 Kenmus99
"The Philistines ("prsti" in Egyptian records) had cultural similarities to the Myceneans, and may have come from Crete. They were expelled from Egypt in the 12th C BCE and settled along the coast of Canaan. They expanded into the hills and may have assisted David in his revolt against Saul. Later, when he had established control over Judah etc., he defeated the Philistines and they reverted to occupancy of the coastal strip. They interbred with other races and their ethnic identity was lost some time during the first millennium BCE. Philistia remained a geographical region into Roman times. This region (overlapping with the present Gaza strip) was not under Jewish control at any time before the 20th C CE."
It would appear that what and who did to what and who 2000 years ago is more than a little unclear.
I revert to my original point #33 that unless the US has a radical change of approach there will be more terrorism, more radical Islam and less safety for all. Just allowing large numbers of people to settle somewhere on disputed territory just because they claim their great, great, great aunt some 50 times removed lived there is a recipe for disaster.
Complain about this comment
All this babble about Obama having links to terrorists, extremists and criminals is laughable. The press and election campaigners certainly know how to exploit uneducated, ignorant and misinformed bigots and racists. I would be more concerned with McCain's association with the self-described 'lipstick encrusted, pit bull soccer mom', Palin. The only similarity between Palin and a pit bull is that they both have brains the size of a peanut. Besides not knowing the 'answers' to questions posed to her, she doesn't even understand the 'questions'!
The bigots and racists are running scared, they don't understand the value of diversity because their ignorance and fear blinds them to rational thought. America is entering a new phase, change is definitely coming, and Barack Obama will lead America into this new era. The ignorant masses should do a little self-reflection and consider joining the rest of society on their journey into the future.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Hey dlabar
It's his job! He gets paid to be there, if he or any other reporters for that matter didnt give a toss about McCain's Campain, then we would hear you guys complaning that the (liberal) media is sleeping around with Obama.
Make your damn minds up!
I can't wait till Tuesday....
Complain about this comment
As someone who has worked a long time in the Middle East and planning to marry o moslem girl I find comment that Obama was a Christian a bit of a surprise.
There are rules for marriage in the Islamic faith, similar I believe to the Roman Catholic faith, and these are:
1 A male moslem can marry a non-moslem female on the condition that the children are raised as moslem.
2 A female moslem cannot marry on non-moslem male because the children could be raised in a non-moslem environment. The male must convert and commit to the children being raised as moslem.
I have no axe to grind against Obama as I believe he is the better candidate but it seems a strange assertion that he was always christian with a moslem father living in fairly strict moslem country.
Complain about this comment
Well, my own prediction for the "curve ball" the republicans will throw in at the last minute is that just before the election they'll announce that they've captured Osama Bin Laden. I suspect they captured him months, if not years, ago, of course, but were waiting until this moment to announce it.
Not only will they hope it makes the republicans look good because they are winning the War On Terror (yeah, right), but it will also remind the voters that Obama is only one letter away from being a dangerous terrorist.
Complain about this comment
Post #59; T1m0thy wrote: "#55 Sankari
#56 and #55
Back from work for a few minutes and your post above got my attention
"Firstly, unlike the native tribes you mention, the ancient Jews had their own established state with their own established laws. They comprised a Jewish nation; a recognised independent country, not a loose collection of warring, stateless peoples"
I hardly think the Mayan, Aztecs or Incas come under a loose collection of warring stateless peoples".
Sure, these civilisations were more organised tham most. But they did not comprise a nation.
"Your definition of ownership is certainly ethnocentric European".
No, it's based upon historical and practical realities.
"Just because the native Americans and the Australian aboriginal tribes didn't organise in our way doesn't make their claim to land in anyway less valid".
I entirely agree. That's why large amounts of land have been returned to their control.
"Secondly your statement about the 1000 year Jewish state seems to be completely at odds with
#52 Kenmus99
"The Philistines ("prsti" in Egyptian records) had cultural similarities to the Myceneans, and may have come from Crete. They were expelled from Egypt in the 12th C BCE and settled along the coast of Canaan. They expanded into the hills and may have assisted David in his revolt against Saul. Later, when he had established control over Judah etc., he defeated the Philistines and they reverted to occupancy of the coastal strip. They interbred with other races and their ethnic identity was lost some time during the first millennium BCE. Philistia remained a geographical region into Roman times. This region (overlapping with the present Gaza strip) was not under Jewish control at any time before the 20th C CE.""
How is this at odds with anything I've written?
"It would appear that what and who did to what and who 2000 years ago is more than a little unclear".
Of course it is. But it is not so unclear that we have absolutely no idea what happened. Historians are universally agreed that the ancient Jews established a nation, enjoyed centuries of monarchy, fought neighbouring countries, suffered various invasions and captivities, and finally lost their state in AD70. This is not open to debate; it is established historical fact.
"I revert to my original point #33 that unless the US has a radical change of approach there will be more terrorism, more radical Islam and less safety for all".
I entirely agree!
"Just allowing large numbers of people to settle somewhere on disputed territory just because they claim their great, great, great aunt some 50 times removed lived there is a recipe for disaster".
Firstly, the US was not responsible for "allowing large numbers of people to settle somewhere on disputed territory just because they claim their great, great, great aunt some 50 times removed lived there". It was the British who controlled the mandate, and the British who controlled immigration to Israel.
Secondly, many of those people who came to live in Israel during the British mandate, were Arabs who had never lived there before. If they were permitted to do this, how can you deny the Jews a right to return to their historic homeland?
Thirdly, the policy was not simply a case of "allowing large numbers of people to settle somewhere on disputed territory just because they claim their great, great, great aunt some 50 times removed lived there"; it was a recognition of the legitimate Jewish claim to their ancient state.
The decision to return the Jewish state to Jewish hands was based upon the same principles which are now used to determine ownership and self-governance of indigenous lands by indigenous peoples, in places like the USA and Australia. It offered peaceful co-inhabitation by Jews and non-Jews alike.
That same decision was ratified by a majority United Nations vote. It cannot be blamed on America, and it was not simply a case of "allowing large numbers of people to settle somewhere on disputed territory just because they claim their great, great, great aunt some 50 times removed lived there".
The Arab states' response to this peaceful agreement was an immediate attack upon the resurrected Jewish state, with every intention of destroying the Jews and stealing their land. For many, that motivation has not changed.
Complain about this comment
#38 Sankari
I commend you on your informative and unbiased synopsis of the "Palestine" situation.
Several comments....
"I think you mean "the return of the Jews to their historic homeland, previously renamed 'Palestine' by the Romans."
This is an interesting (and factually correct) point. The Roman Emperor Hadrian in 132-135AD waged the 2nd Jewish War, following a Jewish rebellion and killed an estimated 580,000 Jews.
He then exiled or sold into slavery the remaining Jews and renamed the province "Syria- Palaestina".
However this all happened a really long time ago.
Although the Balfour Declaration started the ball rolling, it became an emotive and more urgent subject after the horrors of the holocaust.
Your comment...
"Finally, many local Arab landowners quite happily sold property to the Jews, who subsequently developed it into productive farmholdings."
Absolutely right - the story of the struggle of the Jewish settlers who fled the pogroms of Eastern Europe to eke out a living in the harsh desert is often forgotten.
And finally...
"There can be no doubt that Israel has since conducted a brutal campaign of state-sponsored terrorism against the Arab refugees who now call themselves "Palestinians"."
It is entirely possible to disagree with the policy of the State of Israel without being remotely anti-semitic.
The situation is monumentally complex and involves 1000s of years of history, however is often reduced to trite soundbites - thank you, Sankari, for bringing some sanity and clarity.
Peace and .... well more peace please.
Complain about this comment
Thanks Palinpower for that link, I like to read such far right wing nonsense, gives me light relief during my lunchbreak.
Do you believe everything you read or just that which reinforces your own views?
To say we can't dismiss Obama's links but to flippantly do so to JMs, where a great deal of money was actually handed over shows how deluded you really are.
thanks again :)
Complain about this comment
Is this incendiary terrorist-toasting video that really exists which is set to torpedo Obama's campaign at all similar to the incendiary whitey-baiting video that really existed that was supposed to torpedo Obama's campaign back in the primaries?
Or does this video REALLY really exist?
I don't think anyone will allow this video to influence them one way or the other until it is released (and proved to exist). And if it is released it probably won't be as bad as people are making out.
Until it becomes a fact, it just goes on the list of unsubstantiated smears.
Complain about this comment
#63 dejavu
"I have no axe to grind against Obama as I believe he is the better candidate but it seems a strange assertion that he was always christian with a moslem father living in fairly strict moslem country."
It's an interesting point, but can you actually prove Obama was a Muslim or is it just conjecture?
Not all Christians live to the letter of the New Testament and not all Muslims live to the letter of the Koran. Indonesia is not a fundamentalist Muslim state where Islamic law is imposed on all like Saudi Arabia for example. I travelled extensively in Indonesia in the 1990s and found it to be very free and open.
Complain about this comment
Following my earlier post about Hadrian and the 2nd Jewish War ..... I am suddenly very concerned that should Palin ever get into the White House then we Romans may get some well-deserved bombing for Hadrian's policies .... and he was gay!!!
Scared in Rome
Complain about this comment
Gosh, I wonder why my last comment could have been referred to the moderators? It didn't contain any bad language (unless my typing is a lot worse than I thought) and it certainly didn't boast about sleeping with anyone's granddaughter (although I guess even if it did that wouldn't be grounds for moderation at today's BBC).
All I said, and I'll try to rephrase it, is perhaps the curve-ball the republicans will pull out of the hat is that they'll announce that they've captured Osama Bin Laden (which they probably did months or years ago) in the last couple of days before the election, to try to make it look like the republicans are in control of the War On Terror.
Sorry if that offends anyone.
Complain about this comment
... and strangely enough I posted some identical comments to my censored comment #64 on Justin Webb's blog, and they seem to have survived there.
Very strange.
Complain about this comment
dejavuboy post 63
.."with a moslem father living in fairly strict moslem country."
I didn't know Hawaii was a strict moslem country nor that Kenya was. Obama lived in Indonesia for a while and attended a strictly secular school. His father was a non-practicing Muslim and so was his step father. His mother was Christian. At age 10 he returned to the US and remained there attending Christian church.
Complain about this comment
There is a war going on and people are choosing sides, and I honestly think most people are trying to pretend it doesn't exist. It is a war of moral choice, do we or do we not believe there is a God, if so, who is he, and how will he judge us. The notion that we can vote as we will and God (if he exist) won't care or know is ignorant.
Just for a moment let's pretend that the Bible really is the word of God and that he is who he says he is. Or at least those of us who call ourselves Christians should play this game.
The Bible tells us that God has all the world on trial, he has already condemned sin, defining it and made known what will happen to those who practice it. Some of his judgements are as follows.
1. Abortion is the murder of a child, all who support it and commit it will be condemned.
2. A marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman for life. All other sexual relationships are condemned.
3. Israel belongs to the Jews, period. The land belonged to God and he gave it with a oath to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and their decendants forever. God said to Abraham about his decendants, those who bless them, I will bless, those who curse them, I will curse.
If the Bible is correct, God says that he has made us to be free moral agents, able to choose for our selves and as collect groups how we want to live. He in essence says he is going to let us judge ourselves by our choices. It is a little like the laws of this land, if I obey them and honor them I need not fear being hauled into court and sent to prison. But if I choose to burn my neighbors house down and park my car on top of the Mayor, than it is likely I will be viewing life from behind bars with no one to blame but myself.
Now I know that in todays enlightened generation most laugh at the Bible and call it a fairy tail and as such have no regard for what it says. And they are free to do that as long as they live. But I would think that those who call themselves "Christians" should believe that God is, and who he says he is.
Now for those of us who call ourselves "Christians", we find ourselves in a dilemma. Obama's camp is pro-abortion and pro-liberal in other issues that are opposed to our faith. As such anyone who votes for him has to do so at the cost of loosing his soul. Simply speaking you can not be a Democrat and a Christian at the same time for they are diametricly opposed.
Now the McCain camp and the Republican party hardly offers anything better. They give lip service to protecting life, and supporting the Biblicaly definition of marriage and support for Israel. But they have conducted a bloody, stupid, and inhumane war with little to no regard for the lives it would take. And their nod to Christainity seems only for the purpose of building a political platform.
It leaves those of us who believe in a here-after with a moral choice, one that I have not yet decided how I am going to handle. In all honesty I may abstain from voting this time.
It is my hope that people will vote from their conscience and not their wallet. To borrow from the Bible, you can not serve God and money. We need to be true to what we believe. Do you believe you evolved and that there is no god, then vote by the standards you most believe exemplify the world you want your children to grow up in. Are you a Christian, then vote as you believe God would have you vote. What ever your faith or conviction, vote accordingly, you just might have to answer for it.
Complain about this comment
"It doesn't really matter if John McCain as a member of a government panel signed off on funding for Khalidi's group to conduct academic research studies."
That's a massive assumption, and the academic studies line won't wash. Nothing says anything like cold hard cash. Obama has donated nothing.
"That's a far cry from personally associating with Khalidi and admitting in your memoirs that he has opened your eyes on several issues involving the Palestinian question."
I've seen umpteen versions of what that video said from Obama stating that yes, Israel has committed some genocide as well, to another interpretation of him practically kissing Khalidi's feet. Khalidi is hardly a real terrorist himself.
I don't think there is anything to be found here, and the McCain connections give Obama's camp an awful lot to throw back. The Republicans are still going to lose badly.
Complain about this comment
#74 raised some interesting points , in that neither party really meets the criteria that should be important to Christians.
Rather than being torn in two, why do Christians not simply vote for the party that will cause less war, improve education and health for all .... and then perhaps by living the Christian message and accepting other ideas, loving thy enemy and turning the other cheek, they may impress upon non-believers to follow their creed.
Obama does not tout his Christianity. Within the democrat campaign religion is understated, as it should be. It has no place in politics.
The USA is not a theocracy, and so Christians who show by their deeds, are more likely to impress waverers and non-Christians, than all this hellfire and brimstone, anti-Islamic stuff, which can seem a little hypocritical to those who have read the New Testament.
To finish, in many ways I feel sorry for Christians as neither party really signifies what they believe in .... but looking after the poor and educating them may actually lead to fewer unwanted pregnancies and thus achieve the other Christian goal of reducing abortion.
Complain about this comment
#74 goingright
"Obama's camp is pro-abortion"
No one is pro-abortion.
Many people however are pro-choice.
If you disagree with abortion, do not have one. Encourage and educate others not to get into the situation of needing one.
And please consider the case of rape victims, who didn't have a choice in the first place.
But please do not try to legislate a religious belief. USA is not a theocracy.
Complain about this comment
Religion is rarely an issue because so many Americans believe in God that they will never elect a man who does not.
However, were I casting a vote in an election, my decision would be heavily influenced in favour of a candidate who professed to be atheist.
For one thing, it would be an honest and courageous thing to admit, and I would immediately assume the candidate to have more integrity than his deist opponents.
But the main thing is about judgement. I would expect my President to be able to take in information, weigh it up carefully, and come to a rational, logical conclusion. As this can often be a decision that involves the life and death of human beings, not to mention economic, diplomatic and political prosperity, I would need to be confident that I could trust my President's judgement.
Faith can influence judgement in certain directions - consciously or unconsciously. The assumption that faith-based decisions will always result in the greater good is clearly nonsense, given that often different faiths are in conflict, and even followers of the same faith often cannot agree.
And there is also something unnerving that a person can take the evidence of specific selected documents thousands of years old, written many years after the events that they describe, often contradicting each other, transcribed and translated multiple times with many errors, and come to the conclusion that there is an invisible being both all-knowing and all-powerful that created everything in the world and listens to the thoughts of those of us who choose to believe in him, yet cares nothing for everyone else...
Call me fussy, but I would prefer my evidence for such an outrageously implausible entity to be a little more up to date. I would expect fully explainable and verifiable first hand evidence before jumping to such a ridiculous conclusion. Any person capable of believing such an irrational proposition from such flimsy, outdated evidence is someone in who's judgement I would have very little faith.
Complain about this comment
Re Israel. I think nobody should forget the massacres and rape campaigns undertaken by the Israelis against the Palestinians to drive them off their land in the late 1940s
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS