The BBC, acting in its capacity of being the UK extension of Barack Obama’s “Palace Guard” (aka the US mainstream media) led on the website with an item headed
Romney and Republicans raise $100m in June
Under the headline the text confirmed that Mitt Romney, the likely Republican candidate in this coming November’s Presidential election, had raised more money than Obama. At first glance one could have sensed from this the possibility of a Damascene conversion at Beeb HQ…..that they might have actually decided to report a US election in a fair and balanced way by shedding the liberal/left blinkers that for over half a century have coloured their reporting.
But, true to form, as one’s eyes travelled down the page, it became clear that they were performing to the script posted out from the New York Times, Washington Post and the TV alphabets. The Obama campaign is firing all its guns on Romney’s wealth to characterise him as a gold plated fat cat who knows nothing about the everyday problems of ordinary people in a struggling economy – and the reason for harping on the success of the Romney/GOP fundraising was to associate the Republican Party with this fat cat image…
Look, folks, it’s Obama and the people v Romney and the fat cats – and the fat cats hope to buy the election…
Moreover, to darken the image even further, the BBC references a recent Vanity Fair article
And there were negative headlines this week over a Vanity Fair investigation reporting that much of Mr Romney’s personal fortune was hidden in a network of opaque offshore investment havens.
Yes, Vanity Fair, (the one that was so sympathetic to the Occupy “movement”)…..did a full scale investigation into Romney’s wealth (probably using the fifty fact checkers that AP sent to Alaska after Palin’s VP GOP nomination in 2008)…..yet somehow has never managed to send anybody to Chicago to find out more about Obama’s relationship with Tony Rezko, a key figure in his political transfiguration who was later convicted of money laundering and bribery.
But then, since VF is clearly the house magazine of the glitterati, the BBC didn’t spend too much time agonising upon the mixed messages being sent out by Obama’s hobnobbing with the Hollywood elite….
As for the tear stained pleas from Obama and his surrogates about being outspent – smoke and mirrors, anyone?
The only catch is that the actual spending by super PACs so far this year tells a quite different story. The truth is that the super PAC founded by top Obama staffers and its aligned “independent” groups are outspending groups that oppose the president by roughly two to one.
….and behind those pro Obama super PACs are some very shady figures….
But hey, whenever did an honest in depth probe of any liberal/left political structure figure particularly high on the BBC agenda? As for the piece itself just look at the subtle hints offered by the selection of photos……Romney holidaying on an expensive rich man’s toy while Obama is out there talking to horny handed sons of toil….
….and not a single mention of golf….
The more I read about the US Presidential smear-fest, it makes a mockery of democracy. The American public is left to decide which candidate has been least damaged by smears of the other side. US Democrats and UK Labour party use the same class-war anti-toff tactics, in alliance with similarly-aligned media. Carla Bruni declared she was appalled by the vile smearing of Sarkozy by the Left Wing French press (French State-run TV is not in the pockets of the PS like the BBC is in Labours’)
Everywhere all the Left do is smear, because their policies do not stand up to scrutiny.
“US President Barack Obama was cheered by Hollywood donors as he spoke of his declaration of support for gay marriage, at a record-breaking fundraiser hosted by George Clooney” – BBC May 2012
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18038226
“Mitt Romney and the Republicans raised a combined $100m (£64m) in June, laying down the gauntlet to an Obama campaign that is scrambling to keep pace.” – BBC July 2012
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18732537
So why is Obama behind in fundraising? Some months ago I reported here on Biased-BBC from my sources that the President’s fundraising was not going well. Tickets ‘worth’ thousands of dollars were being flogged off at hundreds. Also the disappointment is palpable when he shows up at dinners and stays for 20 minutes (not eating but fleeting). Even seasoned Democrats feel cheated. They are also resentful of his favoritism of certain groups (Hollywood celebs, Gay advocates, elite cheerleaders).
I also told you that the reason for the appearances before groups of cheering students is because the students are given course credits for being present. This constitutes educational bribery by an academic elite bought and paid for by Liberal interests, using their students as mere ammunition. Shameful.
Some of the fundraisers from 2008 have not given Obama cash this time around because of the shoddy way he has ignored them after he’d won– after all if you cough up a couple of hundred thousand you expect an invite to the White House for a handshake at least. The highest profile dropout is Oprah who traded her career to rub shoulders with greatness, only to be rebuffed once the object of her affection won.
Far left groups have also held back because he has not followed through with some specific promises to them – Closing Gitmo being the main one, though they are uncomfortable with the “shoot to kill” drone policy.
I don’t remember the BBC expressing fears when Obama was raising loads of money in 2008. It was used then as a measure of unparalleled popularity. his brilliance, his…I’m sorry, for a moment I forgot – he’s a democrat.
Meanwhile, doesn’t the simple fact that Romney raised $5million IN ONE DAY after the Robert’s decision on Obamacare tell you something about the mood of the country- a mood not reflected in BBC reporting.
This is election is Mitt Romney’s to lose.
The trouble with Mitt Romney is he is a Morman. Alot of the evangelical christians considered the Mormans to be false religion.
I agree Earl’s Court. I’m no Romney spokesperson but: this is politics – not religion. A candidate’s theology shouldn’t be relevant – just his character. Evangelicals should lighten up. BESIDES: imagine your opening sentence rewritten as “The trouble with Mitt Romney is he is a Muslim”. The BBC would be running wall to wall coverage about equal opportunities for all.
Well said, DLR. The BBC has also censored all news of the probably-illegal overseas donations via credit card, possible since the President’s staff has . They did it in 2008 as well, and the media sycophants were equally silent.
A significant factor in the President’s cash deficit is that Wall Street has – at last – largely turned on Him. Apparently if you refer to people scum and villainy enough times, they stop giving you millions of dollars. But since racism and class war is all the President has on which to campaign, there’s not a whole lot He or the mainstream media can do at the moment.
Belated Happy Independence Day David.
May you yet be “independent” of that brass necked fake gold plated phoney Tony of a President of yours very soon.
As I`ve said before-the greatest nation on earth with enough can-doers and creative genius types to run the whole world?…and all you get by way of presidential choice is Mitt and Barak…truly only the stupid charlatans seem to make it to be candidates there, much as over here too I suppose.
As for the BBCs coverage-only hope the Guardian break Pollys pension pot to try and get Obama home in Ohio…as they tried to do with Kerry in 2004.
Should get Obama off the gravy train at least…
It seems very relevant to question Romney’s credentials on the grounds of his religious beliefs. Imagine if he was a Scientologist or a Satanist.
There comes a point when you have to ask: if the man can believe that nonsense then what else can he believe?’.
I wouldn’t mind if the BBC dug around in that cesspit but only if they did the same to Obama – and they haven’t. Obama’s nasty past has been erased from the records and the BBC has been happy to oblige.
In addition to the unabashed poltical bias, the other worrying thing is the constant demonising of the wealth creators – here as well as in the US. I wonder where socialists think the welfare/public sector/health service paycheck comes from?
It seems in 2007 & 2008 Obama’s campaign team ran two illegal cross state lotteries to raise money for his election. This is classed as a felony in the US. No mention of this on the BBC
My apologies, I missed seeing your comment before posting mine above about this.
Obama gets the black vote for free. If 95% of whites had voted on racial lines, as the black voters apparently did, Obama would not be sitting in the White House today.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1083335/Breakdown-demographics-reveals-black-voters-swept-Obama-White-House.html
Luckily for the BBC, black voters are immune to charges of racism. Only white people can be racist.
As for the charge Mitt believes in Mormonism, what else might he believe? Well Obama appears to believe in fairy stories like Climate Change, clean green alternative energy, and compelling people to buy health insurance ( the equivalent of a law that compels people to buy brocolli). Who knows what else someone like that might believe in?
The “black vote” isn’t much of anything outside local elections. They won’t swing a State. Not yet, anyway.
You’re behind with your compulsory South Park lessons.
Their takedown of Mormonism was a classic and anyone who can support Romney after that is, well:…. “dum, dum, dum, dum, dum….” (‘b’ optional)
Saying Obama is an idiot is quite beside the point. It doesn’t make Romney any less of one.
Why don’t you defeat your opponent with argument, not destroy your enemy with personal attacks? You must be a liberal. The fact is neither Romney nor Obama are “idiots”. They are POLITICIANS.