Have a read of this slavishly pro-Obama wittering from Mark Mardell on the subject of Obamacare. It appears that despite appearances Obama had no real plan for health-care. Now he does and doesn’t Mark sounds excited?
OBAMAWORSHIP
Bookmark the permalink.
Hi, I dont think that’s something most neutral observers would get worked up about. Possibly a hint of bias in the overall tone, but I’d be extremely hard-pressed to argue its ‘slavishly pro-Obama’.
The flagship healthcare policy peddled by Obama is ruined, it is a dead parrot and it aint going anywhere.
The BBC do not seem to notice the policy wreckage but step around it and concentrate on the poorly constructedface saving ego serving escape manouvre beloved of failed politicos everywhere.
Lets be honest here shall we?
Obama was hailed as a coffee coloured saviour of the left who would change the US into a socialist workers paradise instead of a rightwing warmongering capitalist titan bent on world domination, he failed miserably BTW!
Obama represents perfectly the BBC political narrative, an anti American American intent on destroying the US as idea for conservative free values, they failed and he failed, the US is rejecting the national suicide being offered by the Obama crew, the BBC will not accept that Obama is a one term turkey now, his miserable one term filled with rejection and failure and broken promises.
Obama is Jimmy Carter minus the political acumen.
Cassandra wrote:-
>> the BBC will not accept that Obama is a one term turkey now, his miserable one term filled with rejection and failure and broken promises. <<
That sounds very much like calling for bias from the other end. It reminds me of my days in the Labour Party 30 years ago when colleagues (or ‘comrades’ as we called eachother then) thought the BBC was biased because it didn’t state their viewpoint as fact.
No, we just want Mardell to be honest about it and stop being a press agent for the President.
Here’s what Mardell either doesn’t know, doesn’t believe, or just doesn’t want you to know. First, compare this more honest account of the President’s missteps and Mardell’s whitewash:
Obama helped bring on the healthcare backlash
The LA Times openly states the ugliness He enabled, while Mardell says that the Pelosi/Reid porkfest and the Tea Party movement against it merely left voters “confused”. As usual with the BBC, if the unwashed masses don’t agree with something, it’s because they just don’t understand, and naysayers like me just muddied the waters.
Now for the real concerns, which we actually do understand, but either the Beeboids don’t or don’t want you to know about:
Everything Obama Thought He Knew About Health Cost Control Is Wrong
A study on which He has relied for his claims that His Health Care Plan For Us will lower costs is flawed.
Mardell claims that the President is tempting his opponents to come up with their own plan or look churlish by rejecting his offer and any reform.
Guess what, Mark – they’ve had one for months. And the Congressional Budget Office says it would reduce costs and the deficit.
I don’t necessarily want my viewpoint as fact, I just want Mardell and his colleagues to stop lying. I would submit, though, that my viewpoint in this case is based on fact, and it wouldn’t be biased for the BBC to report those facts.
Sorry, I meant to say that I don’t necessarily want my viewpoint reported as fact….
Thanks for putting things in perspective. Unfortunately, for those not too up on these things, if one is going to publish a piece without the necessary perspective neutral observers are going to take the view I do. I know DV, like everyone, has limited time, but I would suggest its best not to publish such pieces if they’re not put into perspective.
Slightly OT, but here’s a poster, spotted in Harlem (!), that you won’t see on the walls of Broadcasting House:
Another day, another biased blog post from Mark Mardell. This time he’s blaming the Tea Party movement for pushing the Republican Party further to the right. It will come as no surprise to many here that US conservatives and libertarians view David Cameron as, at most, Conservative-light, with his belief in Warmism and big government and the Nanny State. Of course, to Beeboid Mardell, Cameron is merely an inheritor to Mrs. Thatcher, so his perspective is highly skewed. His personal political bias prevents him from understanding the policies for what they are. Cameron’s policies just aren’t as far Left as Labour’s, but that’s still far to the right of Mardell, so he speaks in ominous tones.
What nonsense. Fiscal conservatism and a fear of crushing taxation is not the same thing as social or religious conservatism. In fact, the vast majority of Tea Party participants are much closer to the center than Republican leadership – except for concerns about big government. Actually, the desire for smaller government and less taxation is as old as the nation, and is not a far-Right position at all.
Of course, since it’s to the right of Gramsci, Mark Mardell sees it as farther to the right than he can handle. It’s a lie, though, and just one more smear from the BBC against people like me.