Poor BBC. I listened with bated breath to their coverage of the stunning defeat for Obama’s Democrats in the heartland seat of Massachusetts. I mean, how would they spin this one? Well, strategy seems to be so far today to not talk about it too much, to then suggest it is Obama’s first real defeat since he ascended to power (So whitwashing the stunning defeats he suffered back in the Gubernatorial races last November) and finally to Blame Bush – after all, poor old Obama is getting the kickback from voters because he hasn’t solved the economic crisis, yet. A wonderful day to hear the BBC in denial of the obvious fact that it is Obama’s radicalism – the thing they drool over – that is handing victory after victory to the GOP.
AND THE LIGHTS ALL WENT ON IN MASSACHUSETTS!
Bookmark the permalink.
I did not hear their commentary, but have read their web news. This does not seem to be too bad, except for the conclusion. To lose Mass must have been by somthing that has really upset the people. Saying it was an indictment of his first year, I do NOT buy. It is almost certainly due to his health proposals, not the sort of news the lefty Beeb wants to print.
Again as I point out that seat has been held by a Democrat for over 50 years, EVEN under Democrat Presidents who have had big problems like Barry. Unemployment thee is lower than the US average (some states are at 15% or more they are at about 8 I think).
Fox News have been spot on about this, it is not just healthcare itself but the dirty deals to buy votes (what happened to Barry’s promise of ‘change’ in the way politics works in Washington?)
Can’t wait to see fat boy Mardell or Kraut Frei trying to spin this.
Hope and change.
Not quite sure how the BBC see this as a “shock” win, when the majority of the commentary that I watched and read were forcasting this for quite some time. The beeboids need to step outside their bubble a bit more often.
This silly Democrat dropped over 30 points in just a few weeks, this went unnoted by fatty Mardell. You have to remember beeboids live with their noses firmly up Barry’s skid marked arse, they see the world from a different view there.
It’s impossible to know why people vote. Did the 47% who still voted for Oakley vote Democrat, Obama, Healthcare, Economy, State Issues or for Oakely as the ‘best’ candidate? Is it possible that some ‘voted for change’? How many voted with their feet for neither?
It is my feeling that in the first election without a long standing incumbent the tendency is to vote for the opposing party. Perhaps those who ‘owe’ him their vote feel relieved of the obligation. Perhaps those who ‘voted the man’ all the years do a rethink. Perhaps those who related to him as a father figure don’t feel disloyal voting for a successor when he is gone.
A look at the Massachusetts map show voting is largely geographical. Who knows why Homer Simpson (61%, 37%, 2%) votes Democrat in Springfield.
Sorry but this woman was over 30 points ahead not long ago and Massachusetts is about as likely to vote a Republican Senator in as a beeboid would turn down a line of coke. I heard the turn out was around 70-80% in places.
Look this was a vote against Barry and his left wing criminals from Chicago. Simple as that.
The BBC had better get off to Chicago again sharpish and interview some black voters, or alternatively face reality. Which is it going to be Beeboids?
Still Beeboids, console yourselves by remembering that the real Messiah was also rejected – perhaps as we speak Beeboid commentatiors will be musing on how to apply Isaiah 53 to lover boy.
I have to admit, it is rather fun to see crestfallen faces at Beeboid house as their world is starting tio fall in a domino effect – first Copenhagen, then The One – perhaps next a court ordering them to publish Balen? You never know.
Clearly no Champagne bottles strewn around BBC TV centre this morning then. REJOICE REJOICE
ha ha martin. funny dude.
Last night the BBC World Service wanted to check how Obama had done in his first year.
Their sole choice of interviewee, I kid you not – a black “community-worker” single mother in South Bronx. Who was, surprise surprise, full of sympathy for poor Barry.
Gary Younge should be sent to Massachusetts as soon as possible to find out why the voters have been so unwise.
I’m sure some of that famous BBC analysis could help prevent the electorate making similar blunders in the future.
The beginning of the end of the always-fake HopeyChangey euphoria. Quite how the Beeb will cope is uncertain. They still managed to squeeze the ‘O’ word into the headline this morning, though – referring ‘Obama’s Party’ instead of ‘the Democrats’. It’s what they do, you know.
Yes, the message on this from BBC is: ‘keep Massachusetts low-key’.
To find out how the typical Beeboids really feels, see the response of pro-Democrat Jon Stewart of ‘The Daily Show’ *- who is down, bemused and witty on Mass., even before the result was known:
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart/4od#3022119
(* This is the ‘Show’ for Tuesday, 19th; if this clip is not available outside UK, no doubt it can be found elsewhere online.)
From the first reports, it seems to me that the BBC has been spinning this defeat as being a result of him not being left-wing enough. They mentioned his decisions not to close Guantanamo and to send extra troops to Afghanistan, as well as the fact that unemployment is rising.
No substantive mention on the popular opposition to health care reform, the botched appointment of several administration “czars”, the evident lack of success on the diplomatic front, nor Obama’s relinquishing of executive decision-making to his fellow democrats in Congress.
Andrew Neil on the Daily Politics today right at the start highlighting Obama’s defeat. Jo Coburn clearly not at all happy !!!
Will BBC re-write its apologetics for its President’s first anniversary now?
I blame Bush!
Leave Kate Bush alone. She’s lovely! Still runnin’ up that hill.
i don’t want to think about Kate Silvertons bush thank you very much, you don’t know where it’s been!
The Obamessiah is now 0 for 3 in local elections in which he’s spent personal political capital. 0 for 4 if you count the Olympics failure.
But this is about more than Him. This is really the first major victory for the Tea Party movement. While there have been a couple of very local effects in small towns, this is the first victory in a state-wide election which was spearheaded by the Tea Party movement.
Of course, the BBC doesn’t want you to know any of that. As far as their audience knows, there were only a few protests on April 15 of last year, and that’s it. BBC viewers have absolutely no idea what’s been going on in the US. They have deliberately hidden this phenomenon from you because the heavily biased BBC North America Editor (and the rest of his biased cohorts) actually think it’s nothing but a bunch of disgruntled extremists, not worthy of their attention. The blatant political bias at the BBC has caused them to fail in their duty to report on the US scene.
I know the “Downfall” gag has been done to death already, but this is one of the better ones.
Jack and Martin
I see some of your comments are scraping the barrel. Unfortunately, I can’t stop laughing. Keep up the good work !
When it comes to the BBC there is a lot of barrel scraping to be done!
Can’t wait for QT tomorrow
Now Obama has spoken on his committment to healthcare reform the beeboids make it the lead story.
As ever the initial meat of the story is relegated for the left-wing spin response.
With a heavy heart, Gavin Hewitt has posted his analysis of the mood in Europe on this first anniversary of the dawning of The Obamessianic Age. Oh, the disappointment as reality dawns on the Beeboids this morning.
The first comment on his blog post (by “AllenT2”) gives an excellent fisking, well worth a read.
Is this really as important to the British public as it is to the Beeboids themselves? Or is this just more evidence that they’re far too obsessed, and have too much of an emotional investment in His fortunes?
Q&A What now for Obama’s agenda?
I’ll just point out that once again the Beeboids get it wrong: most attention in the US is not on the misnamed Health Care Reform – it’s on the economy, which would have been ruined even further by a full strength dose of ObamaCare.
The BBC can’t get their heads around this, and their constant dishonest reporting about the issue shows that their bias on this issue trumps honest analysis.
“Is this really as important to the British public as it is to the Beeboids themselves? Or is this just more evidence that they’re far too obsessed, and have too much of an emotional investment in His fortunes? “
It has no bearing on us poor Brits at all. The only comfort I get from it is that our “cousins across the pond” are beginning to wake up and that the tide is turning. We, in this country have had full blown BBC spin that has played a major role in keeping this country under the yoke of totalitarian socialism for 13 years.
The BBC is not used to democracies, that is why they just cannot grasp that in the US people can vote for change. Wheras here we live by diktats from the commisars in Brussels and nothing short of a revolution will shift (and the Brits don’t do revolutions)
The BBC sees in Obama, a man to change all that democtratic rubbish that the US people seems to like.
Massachusetts is a big dissapointment, fancy letting people decide who should run your lives. Don’t leave it to the dirty unwashed, just appoint someone from the leftist elite, they are, after all the only people qualified to decide whats good for you.
Oh dear!, not the result the lefties wanted? They’ll just have to change the electorate or rerun the vote like the EU does when it doesn’t like the result. They really don’t like socialists/crypto Marxists in the US. Roll on the mid-terms.
Fat shit Mardell on his latest pile of crap blog.
“..Of course people don’t vote, or change their votes, for one single reason and both may be true. It will be a part of my job in the coming months to try and discern what the mood really is…”
What fatty means is “how I can spin this in a positive way for the Chicago crook”
We don’t need a fat git like YOU to tell us what Americans are thinking Mardell.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/01/what_a_difference_a_year_makes.html
BBC’s one party state America.
Radio 4 ‘PM’ (at about 5:40 pm today) had an item which was ostensibly about the Democrat defeat, and the Republican win in Massachusetts.
BUT, what does the BBC do? -Edits out completely any reference to the rise of the Republicans, and concentrates entirely on propagandising about Hillary Clinton!
Note how the BBC refers to Scott Brown.
Dubbed Senator Beefcake in the US media, Mr Brown is a lawyer and former model who posed almost naked for Cosmopolitan magazine in the 1980s while in law school.
Try looking up Chris Bryant (homosexual Labour MP who once posed in his dirty knickers on a gay web site) and find a reference to that incident. For those of a strong disposition, here is the offending photo.
http://www.africanveil.org/SNN0609C-280_606908a.jpg
You can bet that every time Scott Brown is mentioned on the BBC they will take the piss out of him for posing nude 20 years ago (long before he was ever a politician) but the BBC would NEVER make fun of Bryant for doing the same thing, in fact one could argue Bryant should have resigned.
Dubbed Senator Beefcake in the US media, Mr Brown is a lawyer and former model who posed almost naked for Cosmopolitan magazine in the 1980s while in law school.
Not to be confused with Senator “Beefcake” Obama who was also a lawyer (well, not really) who was famously photographed almost nude frocliking in the surf in 2008.
Of course, then it was considered fantastic by the media as it compared the youthful “buff” Obama to the 74 year old McCain with his duff arm.
This also contributed to the white middle-class females who fantasize about “bleeping” an unthreatening black man vote.
Don’t underestimate this block. The Obama campaign certainly didn’t.
“Not to be confused with Senator “Beefcake” Obama who was also a lawyer (well, not really) who was famously photographed almost nude frocliking in the surf in 2008.”
At the risk of taking a ridiculous statement seriously, on what planet is “posing with no clothes on” comparable with “takes his shirt off on the beach”?
I know you don’t like to risk exposing your sensible, intelligent side, Jack, but you’re keeping it even better hidden than usual.
Why don’t you take the risk and try to say something reasonably intelligent on any subject you so humourlessly spew on, in your patented ignorant fashion, luvvie?
Of course. I should have included reference to all those men who also fantasized and even dreamt on being his eff buddy.
Maybe that’s why you’re so — sensitive on any Obama slams and answer them religiously in your own obssessive compulsive disorder.
Don’t you have other websited more sympathetic to your proclivities that you can stalk.
Temper, temper!
Anybody would think I’d hit a nerve, the way you’ve gone off on one. Maybe you realise that your comparison was totally invalid, but just can’t bear to admit it?
Are you really as stupid and childish as your photo makes you appear ?
Thanks for that contribution, John. You couldn’t wish for a finer example of the “civility” that David Vance wants Biased BBC contributors to exhibit. Well done.
You;re welcome, sunshine
Any mention by the BBC of the Tea Party movement’s contribution to Scott Brown’s victory yet? Come on Beeboids, you can do it.
Yes David, Mark Mardell ranted about Tea Party conservatives the other day in a report. I did a post on it somewhere.
I’m not the staunchest supporter of Fox News, but I do laugh whenever someone from the UK starts whining about how Fox is sooooo biased, without recognizing what goes on in the rest of the US media.
Here’s one small example of why I laugh:
CNN, MSNBC Cut Republican Candidate’s Mic!
Check the graphic and percentage of speeches each network showed.
Once again Mark Mardell gets it wrong, and refuses to see the elephant in the room.
Obama’s woes after Massachusetts
Mardell knows his beloved Obamessiah is in trouble, but doesn’t know where to turn or what will happen next. All he can do is continue to act as if it’s oh so confusing.
Just as he was baffled on EU election night that European voters hadn’t overwhelmingly embraced Socialism as Capitalism had clearly failed, Mardell simply cannot understand (or refuses to admit) why someone who voted for his beloved Obamessiah would vote for Republican Scott Brown.
It’s obviously easy for those with a political agenda to impose their own agenda – to find out what is behind the discontent is less easy. The trouble is that there was little in the way of exit polls (apart from this one I’ve just found), so it is difficult to answer the core question: why did people who voted for Obama in the presidential election vote for Scott Brown in the Senate race?
Naturally, the one he finds is from the far-Left MoveOn.org.
Then Mardell says this:
Vox pops are no substitute for such research, but I was intrigued by one man who told a BBC colleague: “It was sending the message ‘enough is enough’. I mean trying to push this healthcare thing through: do you know what it means? Well do you?”
Mr Obama’s woes must in part stem from the fact no-one can answer that question. There are still two different bills, and what impact they would have on individual family finances is a matter of interpretation. Confusion is never a good policy.
Which is a load of garbage. The problem isn’t that there are separate bills for the House and Senate. It’s that any end product will still sink the country much further into debt, will further screw up Medicare and Medicaid payments, and that this is the wrong time to push for all this. But Mardell doesn’t want you to know that. His line sounds an awful lot like the BBC mantra regarding the Irish voting No on the Lisbon Treaty: it’s not that they don’t want it, they just don’t understand it enough.
Here’s an exit poll, with live vox pops, which proves that Mardell is either incompetent and unable to do his job properly, or a liar. As anyone can see, most people do know what “enough is enough” means. I bet Mardell has seen this, and heard the explanation from Obamessiah voters why they voted for Brown this time as well.
To be fair, the BBC didn’t do too badly. They decided to include only one fact about who Brown was: “Dubbed Senator Beefcake in the US media, Mr Brown is a lawyer and former model who posed almost naked for Cosmopolitan magazine in the 1980s while in law school.”
This is, obviously, a lie. Search for “Senator Beefcake” in google and you will discover that there are a lot of hits which regard Scott in this position, but no US media site which uses it before the BBC.
After the BBC used it, a wide range of, mostly UK and international, media jumped on the phrase. It does seem possible that BBC lies will have contributed significantly to the trivialisation of Senator Brown before he takes office.
“This is, obviously, a lie. Search for “Senator Beefcake” in google and you will discover that there are a lot of hits which regard Scott in this position, but no US media site which uses it before the BBC.”
Hmm. According to Reuters:
“A former model, he posed nearly naked for Cosmopolitan magazine in the 1980s while in law school, leading the Washington Post to call Brown “Senator Beefcake” in its Wednesday “Style” section.”
The main point is that the BBC made this beefcake thing a major fact in their description of Brown.
It had been clear for 21 weeks that Brown could well pull off a stunning victory – arguably the biggest electoral upset in the US for 50 years, primarily because Obama and the Dems are hugely unpopular over healthcare and debt and – acutely – over the namby-pamby treatment of terrorists. Anyone watching US politics could see this coming – but the BBC deliberately ignored most of it until it bit them. After which Mardell and others have waffled and failed to giver a true description of the causes.
2 weeks, not 21
I suspect there’s a reason that you’re quoting reuters quoting WaPo rather than quoting WaPo; WaPo didn’t say it. They did say, in the article Reuters refers to, the Style section article of the 20th It’s okay. Sen. Brown was just being a (naked) man. : Ah, gender equity. That Cosmo spread might have sunk a woman, that “In a two-page slice of beefcake…” he’d revealed double standards and such. No “senator beefcake”, though. Later, columnist Amy Argetsinger asked online “will new Sen. Brown be organizing some sort of Senate Beefcake calendar?”, but this is as close as it gets.
Just heard the slur being repeated on the News Quiz. It appears that the Beeb is very please with itself.