The Obama fever that infects the BBC was manifest in an item on the 10 News that I just watched which in essence compared The One to Abraham Lincoln. It”s amazing to watch this Beeb sycophancy, presented to us as news, from the same broadcaster which waged unrelenting hostility to the Bush presidency over the past eight years. Now that their man is about to get into the White House you can be sure that all reporting will be sanitised, ensuring that any objectivity goes out the window.
OBAMA IS LINCOLN
Bookmark the permalink.
Actually there is no such think as a special relationship well only in the minds of British politicians.
However, as Obama will soon find out that when he visits Germany & France to get more soldiers from them to go and die in Afghanistan he will learn what the middle finger is for.
Of course the fat one eyed Scottish dwarf called McBroon will quite happily send more of our lads off to that shit hole turd filled dump called Afghanistan if it gives him first licking rights on Obama’s backside.
Obama seems to be talking Third Way politics. Maybe he should take a good long look at what that load of socialist, senseless bullshit did for us…
“‘See russia’ is a powerful memetic agent, I used it because it convays the crux of the issue with the creationist, power abusing censor that is called Sarah Palin”
The usual autistic liberal leftist response,take seriously something that was said lightheartedly and make a big deal of it.The ” I can see it” is the oldest line in the book.
WTF has that got to do with “creationism” ? Let alone power “abusing censor”
On that last point,any of Barry’s friends,colleagues,college or school chums come forward with any information about him? No,it was forbidden. No college results,no academic papers,just the two books,written at a rather young age,which seem to be the script for Barrack Hussein Obama’s life.
I’ve seen too much of Barack lately so I’ve decided against watching the inauguration. The big question being: how do you stay away from it?
The difference between “right’ and “left” in American politics is a pseudo political distinction that creates much heat and no light.
One of the things that Democrats and Republicans often argue is who can project American power the most effectively?
The difference between Democrats Republicans
Earnest readers want to know what the difference is between the two major political parties. I have tried to provide some helpful guidance.
Democrat. Someone who believes that when people who have enjoyed a wealthy life but behaved badly get into trouble they should be rescued by non-wealthy people who have worked hard and played by the rules.
Republican. Someone who believes that when people who have enjoyed a wealthy life but behaved badly get into trouble they should be rescued by non-wealthy people who have worked hard and played by the rules.
* * * *
Democrat. Someone who thinks it is good to disinherit posterity and turn the country over to the wretched refuse of the earth.
Republican. Someone who thinks it is good to disinherit posterity and turn the country over to the wretched refuse of the earth—as long as he can turn a short-term profit.
* * * *
Democrat. Someone who thinks the U.S. has a right to invade any and every country to impose feminism and multiculturalism.
Republican. Someone who thinks the U.S. has a right to invade any and every country to impose feminism and multiculturalism and to get some payback—whether that particularly country has done us any harm or not and as long as the right people make some money.
* * * *
Democrat. Someone who sees the future as an egalitarian, multicultural paradise for all humanity.
Republican. Someone who sees the future as an egalitarian, multicultural paradise with technological wonders and high profits.
* * * *
Democrat. Someone who thinks that the Supreme Court is the instrument to impose progressive policies on a reluctant public.
Republican. Someone who thinks the Supreme Court is the instrument to impose one-man rule, as long as Republicans are in power.
* * * *
Democrat. Someone who thinks abortion is a good thing.
Republican. Someone who doesn’t care about abortion but has been told that saying you are against it gets votes.
* * * *
Democrat. Someone who thinks the purpose of government is to provide welfare for bureaucrats, minority groups, and rich people.
Republican. Someone who thinks the purpose of government is to provide welfare for rich people, bureaucrats, and minority groups.
* * * *
Democrat. Someone who hopes that if you push affirmative action for everything you will eventually get an affirmative-action President.
Republican. Someone who can’t figure out that if you push affirmative-action for everything you will eventually get an affirmative-action President.
—
Finally, Christopher Hitchens embodies the atheists naive faith that the Universe is knowable, ordered, and consists wholly of particles and their interactions.
Ben | 18.01.09 – 9:36 am | #
Hitchens was not just a “Marxist in his youth.” Economically, he still harbors anti-free market sentiments and has expressed sympathy with and nostalgia for the likes of Allende.
His choice to support Obama is not indicative of anything except the tendency of certain “intellectual” figures to have focused almost exclusively on the “temperament” and character of the two candidates, without going into their respective political philosophies, ideological leanings or policies. Thus reading Hitchens’ endorsement of Obama, I didn’t hear much in the way of praise for his ideas on foreign policy or his social or economic intentions. Like most in the public eye who chose to draw attention to themselves by joining “the Obama club,” we heard a lot about McCain being a doddering old man, about their hatred for Sarah Palin, about them liking Obama’s speaking style, his body language, his poise, about him “looking Presidential” – but not a lot, unfortunately, about his intended tax policy, his plans for public works projects, his overall economic philosophy, his attitude toward foreign policy….let alone his ideological past and his revealing associations.
I always laugh when liberals seem to think that, in the place of real argument, it is simply sufficient to associate their views with what they refer to as the “intelligentsia” – the implication of course being that “most intelligent people are liberals.” I’ll dispute this and always will. A majority of journalists and academics refer to themselves as liberals, always have done and always will do. Yet this completely ignores the fact that an objective measure of “intelligence” is not decided by reference to a majority of anything, let alone a majority of those in professions in which the pervasive culture tends to encourage liberalism and discourage any opposing views. We could sit here all day and talk about the lack of diversity of ideological thinking found in both universities and journalism, for example.
I’ve always laughed at the idea that the left is “more intellectual” or “more intelligent” or “more educated” – if that was the case, then how come I, a man with no college education to speak of, can quite confidently hold my own with and frequently run rings around the so-called “academic liberal intelligentsia” when it comes to discussing economics, foreign policy, ethics or philosophy?
It’s simply ridiculous to promote your views by pointing out who else holds them. Hitchens is an idiot for supporting Obama, as is Boris Johnson. I don’t care what other views they hold, where they were educated, or how many so-called “educated” people agree with them. None of that matters. When I argue against the ideological tendencies and intentions of Barack Obama, I do so by using arguments of my own, not by appealing to a list of “people who agree with me.”
George Bush represented the truth about the American establishment.
Obama is represents American establishment dissimulation, or how the establishment likes to view itself.
Jason | 18.01.09 – 5:27 pm
Hitchens seems to like Obama because Obama is an accomplished rhetorician.
I have some sympathy with that view. I’d rather see a President who can speak well than one who cannot.
Not at any price, of course.
But Obama’s actual political ideology (if he has one) remains obscure.
He fought the election on the promise of reviving the American Dream. Hardly radical stuff.
Besides, fine print distinctions between social democrats and conservatives on the question of government intervention seems to matter less in these extraordinary times.
It will matter again some day, but I’m pretty relaxed about Obama.
In my book, the worst thing the guy’s got going for him is the fact the BBC can’t get enough of him.
mikewineliberal | 18.01.09 – 8:26 am |
Obama is inviting the comparisons with Lincoln. He’s asked to use the bible Lincoln used to swear his oath too. So it would be bizarre if the BBC didn’t feature this theme in its coverage.
Bizarre? So what you’re saying is that the BBC should not bother being an objective, independent, rational news organization but should instead merely reflect the opinions and positions of the people whom they’re covering? I admit that would explain their coverage of Hamas…..
Mr Vance is wrong again. And typically selective: no discussion for instance of Justin Webb’s blog entries rcentely, which are a lot more generous to the Bush legacy than most commentators in this country.
You’re right. Ol’ Justin hasn’t come out and said that Bush will go down as the worst leader ever in human history.
The level of anti Americanism on this site is becoming alarming. Let us all celebrate the start of President Obama’s term of office.
You wouldn’t know anti-Americanism if it bit you on the head.
Christopher Hitchens supports America precisely because it is the most ideologically motivated, most revolutionary, most left-wing power since the Soviet Union.
Planned Economy has been substituted with “Free Market Theory” of which the “Shock Therapy” inflicted on Russia in the 90s was an example of. The result was the same as the socialist attempt to force theory onto society and not the other way around. Russia has all the scars to show for its repeated crucifixion by the West with its abstract political schemes to create a New Age.
What is really amusing, Jason, is that Ben gets up on his hind legs and accuses another poster of employing an ad hominem attack, when the entire thrust of his argument depends on that equally invalid tactic, an appeal to authority.
A little learning…
“Isn’t Obama being reported the way the Royals once were?”
No. He’s being reported the way Tony Blair once was. And we all know how well that turned out.
“Palin was no ready for high office, Palin was not ready to be a town mayor.”
And yet she’s a state governor with one of the highest approval ratings in the Union. Just shows how wrong you can be, eh?
I’d ask what Obama’s approval record in executive office is, but of course he doesn’t have one. Proof positive he’s going to be a great president. And this is what angers me about Obamania: not that he’s being hailed as the American Messiah when it’s obvious he’ll be a truly awful president, but that he’s being hailed as the American Messiah on no substantive evidence whatever.
Maybe he will be all that his disciples say. He seems like a nice guy. But for the BBC to suspend all of its critical faculties and buy into the hype hook, line, and sinker is completely unforgiveable. Why was so much effort expended on digging up meagre dirt on Palin’s family, and none at all on investigating Obama’s past in what is recognized as the most corrupt state in the Union? Maybe he’s as clean as a whistle. But why did nobody try to find out? Why was it taken on trust?
Sam Duncan eloquently asks the question no one from the BBC, nor any of its miserable apologists, has addressed: by what right?
With what possible justification has the BBC elected not to apply even the sort of scrutiny it affords dodgy double glazing companies, to the future POTUS?
This has been the ultimate proof of the BBC’s corruption. It had refused to investigate a story because the possible outcome conflicts with its political stance. There is no even remotely believable alternative explanation.
The BBC is, quite literally, no better than Pravda, circa 1966.
There is not much difference between the Republicans and Democrats.
The Dems support social welfare, whilst the Republicans support corporate welfare.
McCain lost the election because he supported the bailout, marking him out as a hypocrite. Ron Paul could very well have beaten Obama.
There’s some continuity between Bush and Obama; both have chosen crooks to be Treasury Secretary (Paulson and Geithner).
BTW It amazes me that Republicans support the continued existence of the anti-American and treacherous Federal Reserve.
Abolishing the hated Fed Reserve would be conservative and popular with voters. PHmmm…perhaps the Republicans have sold their souls to the banks?