I was going to leave this alone today, but it’s just too egregious to resist. Check out the BBC’s Q&A page for the debt crisis. We’ll just go Q by Q, as it were.
What is the proposed deal?
Under the the agreement, the US deficit will be reduced by at least $2.4tn over 10 years. The ceiling for US borrowing will be raised by about the same amount in two stages. A new Congressional committee to recommend further deficit-reduction measures is to be set up and report by November. Congressional leaders are hopeful the compromise will win the backing of both houses, but some Republicans and Democrats in the House of Representatives remain opposed for different reasons.
Even the White House’s own talking points have the debt reduction as $1.5 trillion. The BBC is using a worst-case (for Keynesians and Socialist fantasists) scenario. Funny, they’re usually much more accurate when parroting the White House dicta. In reality, the actual agreement doesn’t even hit the $1 trillion mark, and the rest of the spending cuts are hardly written in stone and may not even happen. All we know is that, like the People’s Front of Judea in a crisis, it will call for immediate discussion. So the BBC here is selling a molehill as a mountain. It’s more sexy that way, I guess.
What is the debt ceiling?
There is a legal limit on the total amount of debts the US government can can run up in order to pay its bills – including military salaries, interest on existing loans, and Medicare. The current limit is $14.3 trillion (£8.9tn).
The cap was reached in May. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was able to extend the expected day of reckoning to 2 August, by various tricks such as postponing payments into government pension schemes, and thanks to better-than-expected tax revenues.
Geez, BBC, why not just say the government bills include paying to keep puppies from being killed? How about mentioning all the various wasteful schemes like subsidies for cronies, instead of emotionally charged programs like Medicare and pensions? The way they have it, it makes all government spending seem absolutely vital.
Why can’t the Obama administration borrow more?
Because it is not in Mr Obama’s power. The debt ceiling is set by statute and can only be raised by Congress.
An overall borrowing cap was first introduced by Congress in 1917 to make it simpler for the government to finance its efforts in World War I.
Since then the ceiling has been raised dozens of times, and it is usually a formality.
Wrong answer. But the problem lies in the attitude behind the question. The BBC is asking this from the perspective that He should borrow more, full stop, no (other) questions asked. Instead, the question should be coming from the perspective that we’re deep underwater when it comes to debt and why shouldn’t He borrow more money, rather than why is He unable to save us all. This betrays the inherent far-Left mindset at the BBC.
And notice the tiniest, almost microscopic acknowledgment that there’s a fact outside of what they’ve been telling you about how raising the debt limit has been “routine”, and Mark Mardell’s lie on air that there has never been a vote against doing so. It’s now “usually” a formality. They still cannot bring themselves to tell you that every single Democrat – included The Obamessiah – voted against doing it in 2006 when Bush wanted to do it again. Come on, Beeboids, both the President and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have admitted they voted no as a political ploy, as have others. How about it, BBC? Oh, wait, not helpful to His cause right now, is it? And it would put the lie to how the BBC told you He would be above all that partisan ugliness and bring peace and harmony to Washington, etc. And it would reveal that they’ve been lying to you the whole time. BBC censorship still in force when they really need it.
But that’s not even the whole BBC answer. Here’s the best part:
Perversely, Congress also sets the government’s spending commitments and tax-raising powers.
This puts the Obama administration in the impossible position of being required to spend more than it earns, while also being prevented from borrowing the difference.
“Perversely”. Ever heard of Checks & Balances, BBC? The system was created for the exact reason that no branch of Government, especially the Executive, should have unfettered power to do things like this. There’s a reason Congress makes these decisions and not the President. This isn’t Parliamentary Britain. So the BBC thinks it’s mean. But guess what? It’s not the system which put the President in the position of being unable to borrow as much money as He desires: He and the Democrats and Ben Bernanke did. To the BBC, of course, He can do no wrong, an agnus innocentus trapped in a world He never made. They really, tragically, do not understand how the US system works, never mind why it was made that way.
The Government isn’t obligated to throw money around until the end of time, for heaven’s sake. We are in this position largely because of choices made by a series of Administrations and Congresses. It’s not an accident, and it’s not the system that put us here. But since it makes their beloved Obamessiah look bad, blame must be shifted. Again, this is all written from the singular Keynesian perspective that we simply must borrow more and it’s never going to be a problem. The debt ceiling has only become an abstract concept seemingly without consequences because a series of Congresses and Presidents have screwed it up that way.
What is the problem this time round?
The financial crisis and the US’s fragile economic condition have caused government spending to soar, while tax revenues have suffered.
This has caused a big rise in the government’s deficit – its rate of borrowing.
The Republicans, who control the House of Representatives, say they want to bring the deficit back under control, and have threatened not to raise the debt ceiling unless a deal is reached.
Wrong answer again. Some might say we should never have jacked up spending so many times to keep expanding government that we’ve had to raise the debt limit so many times. But that would never occur to a Beeboid, because they are Keynesians and Socialist fantasists who simply don’t understand the reality of what’s been happening. Their belief system is pie in the sky. And who caused all the spending increases, plus the massive economic burden of ObamaCare, which will hit us after next year? The Democrats, who were in charge of both Houses of Congress until last November. And they never passed a budget the whole time, which is why we’re here now. Which the BBC keeps forgetting to tell you. But here they mention only nasty Republicans as a cause for strife.
What have been the positions of both sides?
Both sides accept that cutting the deficit is vital. In recent weeks several plans have been floated by one side or another and been batted down.
The chief sticking points have been Republicans’ resistance to tax rises and calls for much bigger spending cuts than the Democrats favour, and Democrats’ desire to shield healthcare programmes for the poor and elderly and the Social Security pension programme from cuts.
A number of House Republicans – mainly newly elected staunch Tea Party fiscal conservatives – oppose raising the debt limit in any form.
Again, the whole thing is framed as if we must borrow and spend more, and only Republicans are the problem. How about the chief sticking point that the Democrats and the President want a ginormous tax increase, and not just on the evil rich? How about the chief sticking point that the Democrats want to spend, spend, spend, more than what’s physically possible? Nope, it’s all emotional shibboleths again, more images of Republicans holding a shotgun to the head of a cute kitten. What about the far-Left Democrats we’re hearing about today who want only more spending and are considering rejecting any plan if it cuts spending in their darling projects? Can this be any more one-sided?
The last three questions are hypotheticals about what would happen if we defaulted, etc. No need to go into that, as my real point here is the BBC’s bias about where we’re at now, and not in a hypothetical future. And it’s too aggravating to continue anyway.
I’m surprised they haven’t spouted the (not very probable) possiblilty Obama’s 14th ammendment last ditch “defense”
Has anyone tried looking at Spans’ avatar when they have a hangover ? I haven’t, but just wondered.
I must admit that when I post two comments that appear together it is a bit head-spin inducing
Where do people get their icons? I’ve often meant to ask this here as I would quite like to have one, though not a moving one!
there are loads of sites around the net doing them
google forum icons and something should appear
Thanks Itwf. I was hoping to narrow it down a bit from the millions of sites that no doubt Google would come up with. One or two named sites that people have used, was what I was hoping for.
If I had time I would try and find one more annoying than Spans’
Millie, two to pick from…
Span, you Beast! 😀 😀 😀
If I adopt the second one would it get me arrested? Would I be considered a dangerous militant? :-[
Another good one, David. Please keep on naming names. In my view, we should never allow the blame to be aimed at a general, bbc enemy. The bbc is manned by people and it is the individuals who are the real culprits; for it is real people having real (if warped)views about what we should know, think and believe. And until these people are held to account, the bbc will continue as it is, with its malignant influence on our respective nations.
Here’s the New York Times version – and they don’t like the tea party, either… lets wait and see if the BBC mention the renegade Democrats…
House Passes Debt Ceiling Bill
The House of Representatives approved the debt ceiling bargain negotiated over the weekend by President Obama and leaders from both parties, sending the measure to the Senate and final approval that could come Tuesday.
Many Democratic lawmakers voted no on the measure, joining dozens of Tea Party-backed Republicans in calling it a bad deal for the country. But the complicated legislation to raise the debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion earned the support of members from both parties to win approval
Don’t hold your breath
Rep. Giffords is one of the Dems who voted for it. It’s her first day back in the House since she was nearly assassinated.
The New York Times also has a graphic showing the different elements and stages of the plan and how it would work.
http://www.nytimes.com/
The voting figures are interesting too:
Republicans 174 for and 66 against.
Democrats 95 for and 95 against.
Its a bit like handing a heroin addict a thousand bucks and asking him if he wouldnt mind possibly trying his best not to spend the money at his local heroin dealers.
You dont cure a spendaholic by handing them more money or even the possibility of more money or even the mechanism to get access to more money.
Agree with all you say, but lets not fall into the mistake of being too sympathetic to the Republicans as a result of our rejection of Obama and the loony left in the Senate and in Congress.
The Republicans have also sold America out, both historically, and in these negotiations.
A few tens of billions of spending cuts at most will be made up until the next election thanks to this agreement, versus and additional $1600+ billion rise in the deficit. “No tax rises.” is claimed by the Republicans as part of this deal, but they are not saying that the expiration of the Bush tax cuts will guarantee $600+ billion tax rises next year.
So, all in all, the can has been kicked firmly down the road yet again. Obama has been given a much easier ride up to the next presidential election, no significant cuts are set in stone, and taxes are set to soar soon.
Time to buy more gold?
Sorry, that should say another $1600+ billion deficit, not a deficit rise of $1600+ billion
In previous posts and comments, I’ve been clear that both Republican and Democrat Adminstrations and Congresses are resopnsible for this ridiculous spending situation. What I’m talking about now is where we are now and who wants to do what. The Republicans aren’t responsible for the Democrat-controlled Congress raising spedning so much or for ObamaCare or for crippling regulations on industry. The Republicans are not responsible for the President wanting to raise taxes on the middle class or hitting small businesses with more paperwork and expense. The Republicans are not responsible for the President and Democrat-controlled Congress not passing a budget for two years, which is a major reason we’re having this noise now.
If you want to talk about the past, there’s plenty of blame for Bush and the Republican establishment mandarins who are/were social conservatives and little else. But that’s not the topic of the day.
A UCLA professor has recently published a sizeable statistical study that he says demonstrates the left-leaning bias of most of US media. He is being interviewed here.
The most telling claim he has made is that this overall bias leads to some 8 to 10% leftwards swing in US elections.
And given the sheer dominance of the BBC in broadcast media in the UK, there must be a sizeable electoral effect here too.
On the Today programme this morning, Davis was still describing the Tea Party as nutters. Nothing changes in the BBC echo chamber.
Sorry – here is the link to the interviews :
http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/01/ucla-professors-new-book-empirically-demonstrates-liberal-media-bias-video/
JA
In the BBC view – indeed, in the view of anyone employed by the BBC – anyone against “borrow/tax and spend” or who doesn’t believe in the CAGW scam is hopelessly nuts. BTW in an article in today’s Telegraph the “impartial” assessor of the BBC’s policy on religious (sorry, scientific) broadcasting Steve Jones http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/steve-jones/8675729/Scientists-always-anger-those-who-prefer-the-Earth-to-be-flat.html claims to have dealt a mortal blow to “flat earthers”.
so NASA must be flat earthers as well
no,wait……..they actually KNOW it isn’t flat
and they actually KNOW AGW is crap……at least they’re bound to now if they have any shred of scientific integrity after what they have announced on the subject this week
On BBC-NUJ’s Labour propagandist in residence, Ms TOYNBEE:
“Department of Bad Ideas: Polly Toynbee Writes About American Politics”
(by Alex Massie)
http://www.spectator.co.uk/alexmassie/7138794/department-of-bad-ideas-polly-toynbee-writes-about-american-politics.thtml
Wow, even Massie gets it. Toynbee sounds exactly like the BBC. Yeah, I know.
Why doesnt Polly Toynbee use her real name?
Mark Mardell, that stickler for detail, writes: “The leader of Democrats in the House, Nancy Pelosi gave the game away when she called the deal “a Satan sandwich with Satan fries on the side”.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14368249
Umm…no, Mr Mardell, it was in fact Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus who said it.
Good catch, Louis. Mardell is a joke. Is Mardell also saying that Biden didn’t call the Republicans “terrorists”?
He is probably also not saying (or never knew) that Obama once said the first time he met the Republican leadership,”You guys have to face reality. You lost. I won” and later “Republicans will have to learn to sit in the back of the bus”. I love this President’s way of “reaching across the aisle”.
By the way, did he say “the back of the bus”?!?! Wow!
I don’t know about the bus remark, but I know He said during His first discussion with Republican leadership, that the debate over cutting taxes vs. His Stimulus Plan For Us was over because “I won”.
The Wall Street Journal – owned by nasty Uncle Rupert – has that it was prompted by a remark about how cutting taxes would help the economy from Republican Jon Kyl, but Fox News – owned by nasty Uncle Rupert – says it was Eric Cantor. Major Garrett from Fox was in the room at the time, so I’d take his word for it.
The BBC had no problem with it then, and ex-Beeboid Matt Frei even pined at one point for a bit of Chinese-style autocracy so He could just have His way with the country.
Last November, somebody else won. That’s why the House is the way it is now. Yet somehow the BBC views this as “holding the country hostage”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/8675976/Barack-Obama-was-missing-in-action-during-debt-crisis.html
The threat was empty. His Treasury secretary’s lurid picture of what would happen if the debt limit was not raised disarmed Obama of his constitutional weapon, the veto. Obama spinners kept trying to portray him as the only adult in the room. But it was increasingly clear he was not in the room at all. The man one of whose titles is commander-in-chief was not in command of anything.
“Politico: Biden Likens Tea Party Republicans to ‘Terrorists’”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/politico-biden-likens-tea-party-republicans-to-terrorists/
Louis
Yes it was that huckster Cleaver who first used the phrase “Satan sandwich”. But in a later interview Pelosi the rich socialist added the “Satan fries” as a side order :
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/08/02/pelosi_debt_deal_a_satan_sandwich_with_satan_fries_on_the_side.html
Pelosi notably did not try to steer her party towards supporting the measure – she let them have a wholly free vote, on a measure that had been agreed by the President, the V-P and Harry Reid as Democrat majority leader in the Senate.
So it’s like Biden agreeing with the other Democrats who first said they had “negotiated with terrorists”.
According to the BBC the tea party are to blame for?
Well they would have been to blame if no deal had been reached and now they are to blame for the deal taking so long and going to the wire. The BBC desperately need us to believe the tea party are millitants/extremists/fanatics/ideologues while always ready and eager to let us know that the tea party are a minority.
We are guided to the BBC conclusion by its one sided bias, by careful insinuation and selective guests, the world markets are unhappy that the deal has taken too long to reach and the final compromise which BTW was praised by the POTUS was so weakened by a minority of tea party millitants and their unreasonable selfish hardline uncompromising intolerance that the world markets are unhappy with the deal.
In every report the tea party has been pointed as the bad guy, the tea party is to blame for pretty much everything, before the tea party the debt limit talks and pretty much every other inter party dialogue took place in a warm and comradely atmosphere of patriotic bipartisan understanding and respect where the national good took first place. Now sadly and tragically those golden days of decency are at an end with the arrival of a tiny minority of millitant ideologically driven hardline fanatics in the form of a very small number of tea party ideologues who place their selfsh demands above the interests of the USA.
Every BBC report now includes some of the above attacks, talks of the republican side being held to ransom and bullied, that the tea party would see the USA in ruins rather than compromise. The BBC and the leftist US MSM are determined to lay all and any blame on the tea party, they will get the blame for no deal/the wrong deal/any deal, they will certainly be blamed for a fall in world markets and a loss of the US AAA rating. Its operation ‘get the tea party’ at the BBC and in a fit of spiteful vengeance for which the BBC are world famous the tea party are now public enemy No1.
Exactly. I miss the days when we were just simple racists. *DONT_KNOW*
I like this:
… before the tea party the debt limit talks and pretty much every other inter party dialogue took place in a warm and comradely atmosphere of patriotic bipartisan understanding and respect where the national good took first place.
Awwww…those tea party spoilsports.
“the national good” meaning lets slide further into bankruptcy – in a well-mannered bipartisan way.
Clive Myrie just told a lie. Actually, I’m sure he has no idea he’s just done that, but you can bet the BBC News producers know they gave him a lie to read out. He said that the Tea Party has held the Government “hostage” and that if not for them this deal would have been much easier to do.
This is a complete lie, as this deal wouldn’t exist without the Tea Party influence. Instead, we’d have a bankrupt country with an even larger deficit and a lower credit rating and a further collapsed economy.
BBC, you are liars. Stop it.
Sophie Beeboid on the News Channel just told Treasury assistant something other Mark Hoban, MP, that the UK Government’s current policy of tax cuts and “tight fiscal policy” (as stated in the text crawl on screen) was wrong, because the economy might change in the future.
Narrative? What Narrative?
BBC Agenda for the day: Please, please, please, this debt deal didn’t hurt the President too much, He will still be re-elected in 2012, everyone hates the Tea Party, oh please, oh please, oh please.
Well, some BBC producers must be reading this because they just told Clive Myrie to tell far, far-Left Democrat Dennis Kucinich that “everyone knew” back in 2009 that US spending was “ballooning out of control”, and that the President “has done nothing to rein in spending”.
Oh wait, it was a set-up for Kucinich to say it’s a false crisis, it’s just politics. But, Clive protests falsely, what was the President going to do, just keep spending? That can’t work, surely, he abjures.
Answer: we need to stop the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the President will fix things with His Plan For Us. Yep, Kucinich in a nutshell.
BBC producers are not real bright, as they then told Myrie to suggest that the President might be playing a “long game”. The Bush tax cuts will expire soon, says poor Clive, and the President will have $4 billion (with a Carl Sagan-like emphasis on ‘billion’) “to play with”. A drop in the ocean, betraying the BBC’s fiscal ignorance.
Kucinich said what we really needed is “a clean increase in the debt ceiling”, without any of these stupid conditions placed on us by the nasty Republicans. Which is exactly the kind of eternal spending Clive was supposedly saying was a bad idea just a minute ago. Is he not listening to the man’s answers? You bet he is, because this was exactly what the BBC producers intended when they got Kucinich on camera. He’s just about the farthest Left Democrat there is, and unless they got a five-year old to make the decision, the BBC knew perfectly well what they were doing here: get the Left on to explain how this deal was bad for the country and Republican policies are wrong.
What a shock that this matches EXACTLY what Mark Mardell’s recommendations have been.
Agenda? What agenda?
at the end of the day,al beeb will not be decidiing the next US president-the US people will
thank goodness they don’t watch the crap emanating from broadcasting house
and when the Obamessiah,the chosen one of leftism,faces his demise as current polls strongly suggest,there will bee weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth among the lunatic leftist tribes of beebland
can’t you just see Mark Mardell in sackcloth and ashes?Well-he wouldn’t look much different to how he looks now really
he’s like 10lb of spuds in a 5lb bag with a rope around the middle
Hey, BBC, S&P said they were looking for savings, not tax increases. Amanda Forsyth just told you so on the News Channel. The Tea Party, to whom you have referred as “holding the country hostage” and various other Democrat or Vince Cable partisan pejoratives, barely got half the $4 trillion the ratings agencies said we needed to SAVE. And that’s only if these committee meetings go perfectly in the next 18 months.
Can you stop with your BS now, please?
Senator Gillibrand from NY just voted No on the debt deal. Guess who won’t be getting my vote next time.
Senate vote 74 in favor, so now it’s off to the President’s desk for Him to sign. Or not, as He chooses. He has the power to veto this, but I doubt He will because He desperately needs this.
After that, it’s down to Moody’s and S&P and any other agency (who hasn’t already downgraded the US credit rating, that is) to decide our fate.
Remember, this deal, which is being called in some corners of the Leftoid media as “holding the country hostage” and a “suicide mission” run by “terrorists”, doesn’t even cut half the spending the agencies wanted to see. And that’s only if the second round of meetings gets the job done with the rest of the cuts agreed to in this bill. The reason it’s only half what the country needs? Democrat intransigence and a President who said He wouldn’t sign a bill that did anything more.
The BBC, of course, will deny what two experts have told them today, deny the reality of what this bill actually does, and scream bloody murder about the Tea Party.
Right on cue: here’s Mark Mardell on the News Channel. “The Tea Party ought to feel proud of themselves because they turned something that was routine for decades into a crisis”.
Now he’s crying that this is not what the President came in to do. Mardell actually just said He came in with “Hope and Change” and to “help the poor”, and the evil Tea Party “has pushed Him off that.” This professional so-called journalist is actually spluttering and stuttering because he is so angry at what the heathens have done to his beloved Obamessiah.
Jesus Christ. Now Mardell says mabye history will look upon The Obamessiah as “a centrist”.
There aren’t enough swear words in the English language to express my feelings on this Beeboid’s hackery.
How awful and biased is the BBC North America editor? He said a few minutes ago that this deal would possibly make the President come out looking like a centrist, all while saying that the President’s agenda was to spend and spend to transform the country.
The President Himself just made His speech about this deal into a class war attack. The message of His speech right now is pure class war. “It’s only fair”. Any BBC correspondent who says the President is anything other than far-Left is simply wrong, as the President’s own words prove.
Hey, BBC: if what the Eurozone desperately needs is spending cuts, why is the opposite true for the US? Answers on a postcard…..
A debt deal was supposed to calm the markets, aint really done that has it?
Exactly. How hardcore extremist right-wing can this deal be, then?
I’m fascinated by the BBC approach to this in which they’re happy to try and position this as the chosen one looking to resolve this as part of a deficit reduction plan when nothing could be further from the truth.
This crisis only came about because sober heads have woken up that this cannot go on and wanted the spending halted when Obama wanted the spending to continue. He wanted the debt ceiling raising so that he could continue to spend.
The BBC have continued to paint the Tea Party influenced Republicans as bad for opposing the tax raising aspects. What I’m sure the beeb have realised and wish to avoid mentioning at all costs is that the tax rises have been fought because the GOP has worked out that Obama doesn’t want the tax to pay down the debt but to offset the cut so he can continue to spend.
Although I think she might be a bit edgy for my taste, Ann Barnhardt has hit on a good observation over at American Thinker. In her post there she draws our attention to Obama’s comment that he wanted to agree this raise to the ceiling so that he didn’t have to revisit this before the election. Her take on this is interesting because in her view, he wants to spend every penny of it:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/08/we_the_stupid.html
Of course He does. Even Mardell has basically said as much today. We need to remember that, months ago, when the President first came to the table on this, He wanted zero cuts in spending. None. The first time He came out with a budget with an actual spending cut, it was clear that He wanted to borrow lots more money so He could spend so much money He’d make Keynes look like Scrooge McDuck.
So to play it as the President being anything other than profligate is an utter lie.
The President signed the bill. Let the venom and recriminations and BBC spin begin.
I wonder if the 10 o’clock news should have a new rider preceeding each video segment. Rather than it be “This report contains flash photography” it should be “This report contains unfettered liberal / left wing bias”
This summarises how pathetic Obama has been through the negotiations from the start of this year :
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/it_the_day_the_emperor_officially_mwR1iZyJRMqnrIbhaoGt7I
The BBC has kept saying on the news all day that the financial crisis has been solved. If that is so why did the Dow Jones fall 265 points and why did gold go to yet another new high?
I shouldn’t post this, but it’s too funny. Tweeted to Joe Biden:
So we’re terrorists for “holding the country hostage”? Okay, then: For what you’re doing to future generations, you are pedophiles. Own it.
from Jim Treacher
Sarah Palin says that if the Tea Party people really were domestic terrorists, Obama would be OK with palling around with them, just like he did for many years in Chicago with unapologetic domestic terrorist Ayers and Ayers’ previously imprisoned wife.
OUCH !
One man’s terrorist, etc…….
Radio 4 news at 10 last night had soundbites from Obama and from Harry Reid, Dem leader in the Senate. But no soundbite from any Republican.
Bias ? Surely not.
A genuine question. I don’t understand why the Beeb, generally hostile to the USA, is so pro-Obama? Why does he always get a pass? Does with the British Libeal left (BBC) see his actions as a justification for what happen in the UK 1945 election? As the welfare state is being closely questioned do they see Obama as the cavalry coming to save the day with his own leftist inclinations? Perhaps just at a time when Brtain’s financial and social problems are evident a man (POTUS no less) appears and tells them they were right after all. Do they feel that he is bringing the USA into line with Europe and their world view is justified? Help me out someone.
They love and worship The Obamessiah for a few basic reasons:
1. They hated George W. Bush, and any non-Republican in 2008 was going to get their undying support. They invested a huge amount of energy and emotion and personal hope in the defeat of Bush. So a syphillitic camel would have received their undying support. Now that someoen slightly less competent than said camel is in charge, they have to support Him no matter what.
2. He is black. To the juvenile, emotion-based, David vs. Goliath, simplistic black and white world of teenage ideology, electing a black President is a triumph for liberalism and human rights. Never mind merit: ethnicity is more important because of the emotional and PC baggage.
3. They had come to hate the US itself, because of the supposed rise of Evangelical Christianity and the fact that Fox News routinely pulled in more than twice the audience of the Beeboids’ friends at CNN. Their visceral hatred of the folksy Sarah Palin is one manifestation of that attitude. Electing The Obamessiah would redeem the US from these sins. You betcha, it would.
4. All this adds up to a huge personal investment in His success. They were emotionally caught up in the story – not news, not facts, but the Narrative – of a black man redeeming the US and the final defeat of George Bush and conservatism. Justin Webb, Mark Mardell’s predecessor as BBC North America editor, was convinced that social conservatism had died, even before the election. He even wrote a book about it.
It doesn’t matter who wins! Seriously, guys, America is about to become, once again, the coolest place on Earth.
An era is ending. If you still think the US is home to all that is fatty and unwholesome and militaristic and cloth-eared and generally low-grade, and not much else, it may be time to give the Yanks another chance.
Politically, socially, culturally, America is – as we watch transfixed and, in spite of ourselves, impressed – being born again.
Ol’ Justin wrote this in September 2008, two months before the election. He spent years in the US, hating half the country, hoping against hope that the people with whom he disagreed would be destroyed. Not defeated, mind. He spoke of the “death” of a culture. It was this kind of genius which got him his seat at Today.
I could go on and on, but suffice to say that a combination of personal far-Left ideology, juvenile emotionalism, and the fact that they have a huge personal investment in His success translates in to the insanity we see on the BBC when it comes to being caught up in the Cult of Him.
I should add that now they see Him as the lone bulwark against the tide of the evil Tea Party. In their minds, He is the only one with the courage to stand up against everything they hate.
Mark Mardell completely forgot about reality yesterday, when he was so apoplectic about the budget deal that he actually stated that it was the Tea Party who “pushed Him off” saving the country with His spending, and not the financial crisis itself. Mardell is quite literally deranged.
The Obamessiah is their only hope to save the country, and by extension, the world.
Thank you, Preiser (USA). I’d forgotten that quote from the Disciple Justin.
It’s a syndrome: hero-worship of “black”man meets their compulsive need and makes them feel better about themselves. That’s the long and the short of it.
Even the Independent is writing that Obama is a loser :
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/obama-forced-to-swallow-tea-partys-demands-as-deal-is-reached-2330259.html
almost in lockstep with Toby Young at the Telegraph :
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100099357/the-real-story-of-the-us-debt-deal-is-not-the-triumph-of-the-tea-party-but-the-death-of-the-socialist-left/
Obama is worse than a loser. He is now on track to being the first President NEVER to have a formal budget in place. Riding roughshod over the Constitution is Obama’s record of “achievement”.
The BBC is still censoring the information about the Dems not having passed a budget this whole time. It would hurt their Narrative.
But to focus on the Tea Party is to ignore the tectonic political shift that’s taken place, not just in America but across Europe. The majority of citizens in nearly all the world’s most developed countries simply aren’t prepared to tolerate the degree of borrowing required to sustain generous welfare programmes any longer.
Toby Young, impressive.