What is with George Galloway?

I mean, seriously. Do people take him seriously over there? I am astounded that anyone can actually believe the sort of things this man claims.

I understand criminals -- she was arrested today in DC -- like Cindy Sheehan. She has a point of view that is defensible if you start with certain assumptions.

But Galloway? He is not only inconsistent -- he attacks dictators but praises Assad and Hussein -- he seems to be completely barking mad.

That is -- his words seem mad. He himself usually seems to be your stereotypical well spoken, well educated Brit. And he is an MP to boot.

So I ask you -- how is it possible that this man exists? Give me some insight into him. If he just said that Bush is evil, I could understand his point of view. But his wildly inconsistent statements just seem completely bizarre outside of North Korean press releases.

I understand criminals -- she was arrested today in DC -- like Cindy Sheehan. Whoa there. Isn't this a bit over the top? Not all people who get arrested are automatically criminals.

I don't know much about Galloway, but if consistency is a requirement for somebody to become a public figure... How about Limbaugh? Didn't he use to foam at the mouth about drug addicts, until he got caught abusing his prescription medicine? Some other proeminent conservative figures in the same class easily come to mind.

I honestly have no idea who George Galloway is. He can't be taken too seriously if I've never heard of him.

I am not surprised that not all public figures are completely without contradiction -- very few people in general are, and I believe they are called saints.

But Galloway does not even seem to care that he is being inconsistent and does not bother addressing it. I am not talking about a single comment later retracted or even an evolution in his views over the years. I am talking about a man who can decry Iraq as if it is about the oil while simultaneously receiving oil money from Iraq. One who can cheer specifically for the victory of terrorists in Iraq -- not dismally forecast defeat, but literally state that he wants the terrorists to win -- while claiming to be a strong supporter of the UK -- which last I heard was being attacked by the terrorists.

I am not interested in getting into a liberal vs. conservative fingerpointing match -- do not expect me to defend Rush Limbaugh's drug addication. Please stay on topic, which is George Galloway.

Make a search on the name in this forum, he's been discussed at the time when he slam-dunked the US senate witch hunt.

Ah, here it is: http://www.sorcerers.net/ubb/ultimatebb.php?/topic/34/164.html

Ok, I read that thread.

It looks like a lot of people were happy to see Galloway take on Norm Coleman and call him names. I can understand that, as they transferred their hatred of the Bush Administration to a conservative senator and enjoyed seeing someone knock him down.

What astounds me is that people seem to support Galloway himself -- not his antics, but his actual policies and statements. I do not understand how someone so extreme can become an MP, and I am curious as to how Brits (or Scots) explain it. Is it simply due to the fact that he is a firebrand and people are electing him as a poke in the eye to Tony Blair? Or do people really think that this guy has integrity, vision, etc.?

It looks like a lot of people were happy to see Galloway take on Norm Coleman and call him names. I can understand that, as they transferred their hatred of the Bush Administration to a conservative senator and enjoyed seeing someone knock him down.And I so enjoy impartial narrations of events like the one above... :lol:

Is it simply due to the fact that he is a firebrand and people are electing him as a poke in the eye to Tony Blair? Or do people really think that this guy has integrity, vision, etc.?It's a bit of both. O.K., he has the record of apparently supporting Saddam, but that needs to be taken in context: you can't wander in to a dictator's country and just start putting him to task without buttering him up a bit first. At least, not without getting bits chopped off. Nothing else has ever been proven.

As for his election to Parliament: the constituency he stood in has a very high proportion of Muslim voters, who - in general - rightly or wrongly believe the war on Iraq was a war on Islam. There are also a large amount of folks who feel that New Labour has abandoned them in dropping their Socialist policies, which Galloway's "Respect" party has picked up on.

As for how people can believe in him... In Britain, cynicism about politics is pretty much universal. However much dirt people try to sling at him, the prevailing attitude is likely to be "well, all politicians are as bad". In fact, without anything serious actually proven, Galloway has managed to pull off one of the greatest political tricks possible: to his supporters, he's made himself look like a rebel with a cause so just, the establishment will try anything to defame him.

My attitude towards him? Well, I'm undecided. I enjoyed his barnstorming performance in Washington, where he pretty much destroyed his accusers, but otherwise my politics don't really match his. On other charges, I think he's probably been involved in some dodgy business dealings in his past, but I can't see him involved in anything really nefarious.

He's probably no worse than any other politician... ;)

He is not only inconsistent -- he attacks dictators but praises Assad and HusseinWell it wasn't so long ago that Tony and Colonel Gadaffi were having a get together in a yurt somewhere near Tripoli. In fact the Colonel was so enamoured by our very own "Dear Leader" that he followed Tone across the Mediteranean and pitched tent near Brussels for a while just to be near him... (No wonder he was known as "The Mad Dog of the Middle East!") :)

Pretty well covered by Mags.
He's not taken very seriously by the majority of Brits, as indeed is the case for most MP's. (Unless someone else can explain Boris Jonson?)

It's a strange mentality we have as a nation, but the majority of us always cheer for the underdog. After being chucked out of the labour party due to his views on a war most of the British public now don't agree we (after being misled, but hey, it's not all that important), we greatly enjoyed seeing him win his constituency from said labour party, and causing president Blair some discomfort. The feather in the cap was his wonderful first performance in the US where he left the self-righteous war-mongers (I still want the tongue in cheek smiley) floundering. By all accounts the more recent one degenerated into nothing but insults and he didn't bother to refute any of the points made.

Thanks, Magpie and Carcaroth, that was the kind of question I was looking for.

Taluntain, I was not pretending to offer an objective narrative. Please do not be snide.

I can't really know what you thought you were offering. Still, I'll try not to hurt your feelings again.

P.S.
In case this hasn't set in yet, I was joking in my previous post.

Galloway is a ledge for some things, and a tosser for others.