I was on the BBC earlier this morning talking through last evening’s Presidential debate. It was bad, real bad, for Obama and even Mark Mardell was forced to accept that Romney “won.” So cue solemn music and black armbands. The new line is to say that whilst Romney may have “won” the debate, if the polls do not shift in his favour he will have lost! LOL – wonderful stuff and assumes that we all believe the pro-Obama polls.
ROMNEY WINS, BBC GUTTED
Bookmark the permalink.
It seemed to me that, given Mardell’s downbeat report (his only positive for Obama’s performance was to replay a very lacklustre “best response” from the community organiser) and that the item was third or fourth in the Radio 4 8:00 News (imagine if Barry had trounced Matt), Obama must have been led bleeding from this encounter. I await David Preiser’s report on this.
Yep, the geeky, snobbish android-American beat the charming and eloquent cool dude in the debate, thereby proving everything the BBC ever said about these two was a lie, including ‘and’ and ‘the’.
Now we’ve found out that blustering, stiff-necked drones rarely get to be successful CEOs and that Obama off telepromoter is like Ted Kennedy on a bridge, would the BBC care to tell us how exactly they got this ‘about right’?
Funny you should mention teleprompters.
Of all to choose from, the ‘Editor’ has chosen this as a ‘Pick”;
‘159. ScotUS1992
I completely disagree that Obama was ‘hesitant’. He was pausing when answering the questions because he was actually thinking about the question and giving intellectual answers!
Romney seemed like he was reading off the prompter and as if he spent the night before memorising a script – he basically sounded like an actor, but without the emotion of a normal person.
Reflecting ‘a’ view, or the desired one?
This is all quite interesting.
What is a leader these days? What powers to they have? What are they called upon to do?
As with Mrs. T, I didn’t have to like her to appreciate she was fighting for what she believed in, and her country. And seemed pretty on the ball.
Is a slick front person now what’s required? Or, when chips are down, a chief executive who can make the calls without waiting on the research or what his aides think may play well?
If the latter, and the US public opts for the alternative (not saying much good, but sure as heck not as bad) to ‘received wisdom’, it could get messy as the majority of the MSM will go into ex-pram toy-lobbing conniptions, and make the country ungovernable. Which may not serve democratic process quite as it should.
But at least in the US the 350M people are not compelled to fund one of them no matter what in doing so.
So they still have more choices in such matters than we do.
No, this cannot be true. A gaffe-prone simpleton cannot possibly defeat one of the greatest minds of our time in a debate. If it is true, then I can only think that Obama lost this one deliberately. We cannot hope to understand the workings of His mind.
I’m trying to imagine the mental gymnastics Al BBC will employ to cope with the fallout when Ryan eviscerates Joe “three-letter word – J.O.B.S” Biden.
Who is this Biden person? Though the VP was Billary Clinton.
I wonder how this coverage will compare with the coverage should Obama win the next one? It may be very revealing.
That’s easy: it will be framed in terms of ‘the debates just got interesting. With one to go it’s all square with Obama in the ascendent after his widely acknowledged victory in last night’s debate…’
Substance over style is not something which means a whole lot to the BBC; just look at their fawning ‘analysis’ of Red Ed’s conference speech; zero policy to digest, but plenty of Left-wing platitudes.
Pure assertion. Mardell quite clear he lost and pretty damning of his peformance. No solemn music or black arm bands, literally or metaphorically. And Justin Webb on Tweet just saying BO has a “tin ear”.
Wow so one report a summer makes! shame it will be buried under the avalanches of pro obie -one copy to rally the troops !
All I heard Mardell say was that ‘according to most commentators here Romney won the debate’. So even in this not an unconditional victory for Romney. Moreover, I can’t quite remember Mardell making an explicit statement that his opinion was Obama lost.
Maybe the BBC semanticists can take a leaf out of Hirohito’s book of PR classics…
‘The debate has developed not necessarily to TheOne’s advantage.’
Worked for him.
Clearly, I appreciate that one.
Kyoto
Utter bollocks.
Mardell’s piece reeks of begrudging disappointment and resentment. It is written through tightly gritted teeth.
But it’s an easy one to slip out under the ‘look, we’re not biased’ banner by acknowledging an axiomatic truth that Romney wiped the floor with the One. Once it gets back to shades of grey and nuance, normal service will be resumed.
Mardell and Co. are full of excuses as to why He lost.
Hi folks, been away so haven’t caught up with the TV debate. Just watched and would though I comment on what a wonderfully fluent, eloquent, concise and incisive speaker Romeny was; very statesman like. This man seemed to know what he was talking about in fuel and energy economics whereas Obama waffled, fumbled and seemed to be trying to follow a memorized script. This could get interesting… but if I were a citizen of the USA, I know whose name I’d be putting my cross next to!
Your grammar and punctuation is as atrocious as ever I see, Alex.
Still, you have to admit, his post was at least still on topic and relevant.
Triumph of substance over style, Alex, well said. We have all seen impeccably spelled and correctly punctuated drivel. Grammar-geeks rarely comment on what people say, they pounce on the first missing possessive apostrophe. Not much of a contribution is it, being a spellchecker.
Barry didn’t just loose…he got schooled big time! For many on the left this will be the first time their beloved god has had to front up in front of a national audience where the President has absolutely no ability to control the image being portrayed.
So for the left, they are being confronted head on with the real Barry Obama. Far from being the scholarly big brain the left wants him to be they are being forced to watch the real bumbling, incompetent, way above his pay scale fool that he is…and there is nothing they can do to combat that short of burying their heads in the sand.
For Barry, I don’t think there is a way out. He is so far behind that all he can hope to achieve now is to come close to Romney in the next two debates and then leave it up to his adoring fans in the MFM to talk him up to a draw (which will then be spun as a win for Barry).
You know what though, this was such a bumbling, incompetent farce that after half an hour I was just cringing for Barry, wishing the debacle would end! 🙂
Regards
Mailman
I’ve lost count of the number of bloggers who seem not to know the difference between loose and lose. There are too many instances to be explained away as typing errors.
All the fun of the fair:
fair-fare
lose-loose
too-to-two
your-you’re-yore
their-there-they’re
where-wear-were
past-passed
buy-bye-by
for-fore-four
wait-weight (yes, really!)
moot-mute
…and many more
why stop there?
http://www.bifroest.demon.co.uk/misc/homophones-list.html
That link I like!
Meh…its just that I cant spel!
Fortunately my command of the english language seems to be far superior than the man gods command of english! 🙂
Mailman
I’m starting a Downing Street petition to get their A* GCSE English papers re-marked now.
Watch the British commentariat (BBC excepted) and the Conservatives in government and the media suddenly discover they never said what they said about Romney, and certainly never meant to disrespect the man who will be most welcome in London again.
Sans drubbing and without anti-American sentiment.
Hopefully he doesn’t forget and will resist the siren calls to intervene in Syria, and concentrates instead on America’s needs, not Europe’s.
A period of US isolationism will be most welcome.
“I never said half the stuff I ‘said’.”– Yogi Berra
But I figure the more telling bit of the Yogi’s wisdom, in respect to the situation at hand, is that it’s never over till it’s over.
It was good to see the next president of the USA, showing the current president what it takes to be a president!
Ahh, be careful, now. It’s not “Romney wins”, it’s “Romney ‘wins'”. An important distinction at Al Beeb…
I’m shocked, shocked to learn that the BBC has put up a poll from 6 days ago next to this report.
Watch out, Martin W will be on your case to point out your speling erors! 🙂
Regards
Mailman
The BBC may have reluctantly reported that: ‘Polls show Romney won TV debate with Obama’ but look at the comments that follow the report. Actually don’t look at all the comments, just the ‘Editor’s picks’, here they are as of now:
‘Comment numbe 382. vinod 51 Minutes ago This was just a debate so don’t build bridges on sand.Election will tell more.It is sure U.S. has to change,that does not mean president.Obama is a good debater but he has history of more than past nearly four years to prove what he says so how can he be bolder?He is honest,no doubt..
Comment number 159. ScotUS1992 3 Hours ago I completely disagree that Obama was ‘hesitant’. He was pausing when answering the questions because he was actually thinking about the question and giving intellectual answers! Romney seemed like he was reading off the prompter and as if he spent the night before memorising a script – he basically sounded like an actor, but without the emotion of a normal person.
Comment number 79. AndyEsbjerg 4 Hours ago There is only one poll that matters, and that is the election itself! I just hope that voters remember which party got them into this economic mess in the first place. Romney strikes me as the type who wishes to “Divide and Rule”, whereas Obama does seem to want to help the poorest and disadvantaged in US society. I ask Americans what do you want, equality for all, or winner takes all?
Comment number 73. Nikki 4 Hours ago I literally can not believe what i’m reading!?!?! Just because he gave a more “aggressive” debate, doesn’t mean he knows how to run a country properly… I have not read a single piece of evidence to show that Romney would be good in power. So why is he even in the running still!?!?! Give us Barack! If the Americans are dim enough to want him out, then there should be a place for him here ^^
Comment number 65. Nick 4 Hours ago I do find it worrying how many people in the USA, subscribe to the GOP and its “small government”/”low taxes for the well off” agenda, which manifests itself in a distrust of a national health system. I bet most of these people would no longer have such a high opinion of “small government” if they found themselves in hard times and the government refused to help.’
So of the five editor’s picks, all five are pro-Obama none are pro-Romney. Who said that the BBC are biased? Are there really no decent pro-Romney comments that the BBC have received?Here’s a few that I found:
‘466. TeaPartyBrit 2 Minutes ago Shock Horror. A somewhat right wing US politician, a Republican even, comes across better in a debate with that darling of the left, Barack Obama. All you left wing, anti-Americans, spitting your careless bile, may have to face up to the fact that you socialists and your servants in the chattering classes do not have a monopoly on intellect, in the UK or the US. Watch Biden v Ryan.
464. Rather_Be_Cycling 3 Minutes ago Of course he did. FInally Romney’s prudent economic vision gets through to voters without the endless “filtering” by the obscenely left-wing bias of the mass media.
463. Alexandre Bykov 3 Minutes ago Unfortunately, Obama’s performance was flat. It seems that he could not do well without a teleprompter (?).
424. PhilSpace 30 Minutes ago ‘Obama and Romney in Denver Dual’ – the headline on the BBC want’s to make you believe that this was close, they were equals. But the CNN and CBS data shows that this was a runaway victory for Romney. If you watch the video Obama was just outclassed and looked embarrased to be there. The headline said Romney ‘won’. He didn’t ‘won’ he won. BBC hate it that their guy ‘lost’.’
And that’s just from the first three pages of comments. By 100% of the ‘editor’s picks’ being pro-Obama, s the BBC not admitting that their editor is biased in favour of Barack Obama?
Anybody fancy lodging a complaint with the BBC re this example of bias, I don’t have the time today?
If you do complain, hitting the bias option will send you down a one-way alley to oblivion.
They love bias accusations, as they are so subjective.
That said, the standard, ‘we have investigated ourselves and have again found comfort in the belief we have got it about right’ response might prove less easy to cut & paste back in light of revelations about the calibre of BBC self-assessment in the past to the present time.
Certainly well worth capturing those now though, because when the time comes, whoever does such ‘picking’ surely has shown an interesting slant and it will be interesting to hear their explanation as to what shaped their choices in light of what happened, what folk said about it, and what the BBC’s finest decided best represented the facts of the events vs. how people whose opinions they prefer/red ‘felt’.
The whole ‘representing the views of the nation’ facade appears to be crumbling too.
Reckon they’ve been reading your post. The 5 picks now include:
488. Truthbefreed
24 Minutes ago
It is amazing how divided this president and the prior president Bush have made our great nation.. I am reading these comments and must say wake up out of your anger and rage nightmare. It’s ok to like Romey’s performance last night he did great. In fact he has convinced me to vote for Him as of now. Romney will be the president who pulls us back together as a nation!
487. Keys
25 Minutes ago
Obama came across as annoyed and Romney wiped the floor up with him in this debate. If the next two debates go the same way, Obama will be unemployed come January 1, 2013. No amount of spin can change what happened.
So unless you’ve got a screengrab you’d be wasting your time.
Good, I hope they are reading my blog: a) they might learn something and b) it might keep them honest.
NO, if the BBC read your blog they’ll be quivering and whimpering in a corner of a dark room hoping someone wills top you being beastly to them! 🙂
‘So unless you’ve got a screengrab you’d be wasting your time’
And… even then….
However, sage advice.
1st rule of BBC Club: take a grab
2nd rule of BBC Club: mention URL on a forum
3rd rule of BBC Club: when they notice (on blogs that are so irrelevant & some care so little about every time they come back each hour just to say so) and hit the stealth mode… publish the original grab and another of what it has evolved into.
That’s when certain ‘views’ become something tangible worth looking at, and usually paint an interesting new picture in their own right.
One that is not so easily, or airily explained away by CECUTT.
And they don’t seem to find it comfortable at all.
“You’re entitled to your own house and your own plane but not your own facts” Romney to Obama.
Romney wiped the floor with him.
I watched it live here in Canada. For me the defining moment was, Romney to Obama, “I’ve been in business for twenty five years and I haven’t the first idea what you are taliking about”
After, I flicked through the US channels, on one, an audience panel of about thirty went into the debate overwhelmingly having voted for Obama in 2008. Post debate they came down overwhelmingly for Romney.
Even MSNBC were stunned.
The problem is that even people who think Romney won the debate will still vote for Him if they’re true believers.
My friends bailed on me last night, so instead of watching anime I ended up watching the debate. I guess I’m glad I did because it made me dislike Romney slightly less, and I got to see for myself what some in the media are furiously working to spin away.
It was like watching one of those phony psychics trying to demonstrate their magical abilities in a controlled, scientific environment where they couldn’t use mirrors or magnets or other tricks of the trade. I wasn’t surprised at all, but the fact that Mardell and his colleagues were so shocked shows that they really haven’t been looking at Him honestly for quite some time.
Last night during the live texting, Mardell was moaning that the President didn’t do so well because He was “over cautious” and Romney kept interrupting Him. Not much of an indictment. The veteran politics junkie can see that the President lost, but his follow-up “analysis” has some serious problems.
He says that the facts and figures went by too fast for anyone to follow. Hmm, we heard same Narrative recently from Justin Webb: too much information can be confusing to the mouthbreathers. That’s unfortunate considering he was only yesterday letting us know that, while these debates rarely change any voter’s mind, they do leave us more informed. So much for that when it actually happens, I guess.
Romney was prepared, the President very obviously wasn’t. That’s what you get when your handlers let you spend a month or so making the light entertainment and local news rounds instead of facing serious questions. And we know He was whining about having to practice for it. For some strange reason, the BBC’s top man in the US, usually quick to pass judgment on political strategies and tactics, seems to have missed this entirely, as he’s never made a critical remark about it as far as I’m aware.
Romney won only on the superficial, Mardell assures us. Okay, maybe that is a damning indictment of the President because that’s usually all the Beeboids care about out.
They’re concerned, alright, and the excuses are flying far and fast:
“Obama and his campaign are very disciplined and research-driven. There may well be a very intentional plan to keep Obama low-key, low-rhetoric, wonky and prosaic. They are looking at achieving more than media spin. And this debate is essentially a monotone, no fireworks, no mongo-gaffes, no crack-them-up funny lines and no big margins.”
If by “research-driven” he means “coming up with bogus talking points which were mostly easily refuted by Romney”, then, yeah. If by “achieving more than media spin” he means “getting away with a pack of lies”, then I agree.
“Amazingly” nobody brought up the 47%er thing? Could that be because it’s a non-starter that Mardell and the entire Left-wing establishment media have grossly misrepresented from the beginning and honest people know it? Nah.
I could just as easily say it was amazing that Romney let the President get away with telling the gigantic lie that Social Security is “structurally sound” when it’s losing money hand over fist, unable to make all its payments for two years in a row. Of course, Mardell wouldn’t be aware of that, as he’s focused exclusively on partisan attack points.
Romney kept interrupting the President because He kept telling lies about Romney’s policies. The President didn’t appear “over cautious” (as Mardell put it last night) as much as seriously outgunned. Without the usual class war rhetoric, and when forced to deal with the reality instead of the usual phantasms and straw men, He had nothing. Nothing. Romney was able to point at Him time and time again and show that the Emperor is not actually wearing the amazing fancy new garments we were told He was.
That the President and His handlers thought they could get away with just showing up and spouting obvious clunkers is also an indictment of a compliant media who have let Him get away with it and propped Him up for so long. He and they thought He could get away with it, but a non-confrontational Jim Lehrer let Romney put a stop to it. Some US media luvvies are blaming Lehrer in part for the loss.
I love how Mardell ends by saying of the polls “hardly budge” it really will mean he hasn’t been lying to you about Romney being in a deep hole. Oops:
Obama, Romney Tied Among Likely Voters
That was from yesterday, before the debate. So were these:
Battleground Poll: Race still tight
The presidential race is tight enough nationally that a strong performance in Wednesday’s debate by Mitt Romney could put him in the lead.
A new POLITICO/George Washington University Battleground Poll of likely voters shows President Barack Obama ahead 49 percent to 47 percent, a point closer than a week ago and still within the margin of error. A tracking poll will be performed each week, and the results released each Monday, through Election Day.
Huh. Imagine that.
Rasmussen had the President up by barely two points, with 3% still undecided. Margin of error, really.
You get the idea. It was only the other day that Mardell was assuring us that “no-one” doubted that polls showed Romney in serious trouble. Now he’s just completely walked that back. He knows it was BS, and is now being forced to dance around what he’s done.
Don’t trust him or the BBC on US issues. And isn’t all this criticism of His performance racist?
If you guys don’t vote Romney in, can we have him instead of our useless, superficial and self-absorbed shower? He’d soon, I’n certain, get rid of the deadwood in the civil service, cut the quangos and demand a rethink on our destructive relationship with the politically correct cancer that is the EU.
Unfortunately, Mardell says that a Mormon candidate “would indeed be questioned” over his religious beliefs.
Richard Bacon jumps up like an excited schoolboy when his hero Obama does well – or more to the point – when Romney makes a slip.
Oh dear, poor ‘balanced’ Bacon is on half speed today. He reckons he is a nerd about US politics. Au contriare, he supports the Democrats like others might support their football team. And he loves to see the rival team make a pratfall.
Bacon worries that his man is not match fit and is underperforming. Meanwhile all Bacon can think about is to ponder on why Obama didn’t use the anti-Romney material that he (Bacon) thought were such knockout blows. You know, that 47% thing.
Hey, BBC! Bacon is biased!
I believe that the real reason Radio Five Live messageboards were ended was that it was one-way traffic on the subject of Richard “the ego has landed” Bacon…
I mean one-way apart from the BBC trolls.
For what its worth, I watched the debates live last night flicking between BBC and Sky. I have to say that the BBC, though tightly controlled, was fairer than Sky’s. The BBC presenter went across to their own KATTY KAY and she, surprisingly, was forthright in admitting that Romney had won. A little later the Mardell tweet was quoted.
All this speaks about how incestuous the BBC is. One BBC journalist intervening another BBC journalist and quoting a third BBC journalist, with no one else consulted. Between them deciding what the narrative should be. It is also instructive that the debates have now sunk without a trace on the BBC headlines.
Over at Sky things were actually worse. They went over to interview some people at what they admitted was a Liberal bar who had specially organised the event. The presenter spoke to a couple of partisan people (1 Republican and 1 Democrat) for an unenlightening “debate”. I would have thought seeking out floating voters would have been better?
Then across to Adam Bolton who immediately announces that Obama had spoken 4 minutes longer than Romney and, by that, seemed to imply that he had won, then said that the betting markets had dipped during the debate but had now returned to Obama being 67% to return to the Whitehouse.
Talk about trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.
They consulted a third party today on the News Channel: a former speechwriter for Clinton.
BBC’s Matt Danzico (who campaigned for Obama in 2008) has done a “but what did voters think of the debate” film from Pennsylvania. He’s an intrepid reporter is Matt – he managed to find a guy who says he’s a Republican, thought the debate was 50/50, and will vote for Obama. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19828865 (1:05 in)
Well look who the BBC uses to do it’s fact checking. Washington Post, New York Time, Factcheck.org & Politifact.com. All reliably left wing. Probably this was lifted from a DNC release.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-19832326
Yes, the BBC-Democrat political line is that this TV debate, which Romney won, won’t change things.
What BBC-Democrat seems to mean it that it won’t change the way in which BBC-Democrat campaigns for Obama.
Schama will be getting lined by BBC-Democrat as we speak.
Yup. Most of the left-wing pundits and media outlets in the USA conceded a Romney win – Michael Moore, Van Jones, Chris Matthews – but not the sullen BBC.
“Obama and his campaign…may well be A VERY INTENTIONAL PLAN to keep Obama low-key, low-rhetoric, wonky and prosaic. They are looking at achieving more than media spin. And this debate is essentially a monotone, no fireworks, no mongo-gaffes, no crack-them-up funny lines and no big margins.”
Well, well, Dick Meyer, the executive producer of BBC America, says Obama planned to lose. Like Gordon Brown? Just a feint, was it, Dick? At least Al Gore had a creative excuse for Obama’s performance – it was the altitude. The altitude!!! Altitude shouldn’t worry a man like the president who lives on mount Olympus. No doubt Obama got his balls chewed off in private by Axelrod, Michelle and Sorros and as a result next time he’ll come out punching, and as the subject is foreign affairs so that’s a winner for him! (lol)
Meanwhile Mardell and co are in their defence posture. Carry on, boys.
It’s ironic that Obama’s problem is in part because his media chums have kept him protected for four years. If they had been a little more rigorous their hero might have been a little more prepared.
Finally, two small points you may have missed:
1. When Obama’s cheezy shout-out to his wife on their anniversary went down like a cup of cold vomit with the audience who were expecting substantial conversation not quotes from “The View”, it was Romney, showing extraordinary kindness, who helped him out with a comment that produced the response Obama planned. I think Romney is a “good man”.
2. I was watching a direct feed. While the Obama and Romney families were making nice after the debate, Romney quietly left the throng and tidied up his papers and stored them away in a briefcase. After everyone left the stage, an Obama staffer scuttled onto the stage, collected Obama notes and cleaned up after his boss. Compare those two actions. Romney was in control – even after the fray, while the Imperious President left a minion to clean up after him.
Michelle Obama’s body language and expression at the end was very telling.
It’s as if she knows the game is up and that her fingers will soon be prised from the doorway of Air Force One.
I agree, TPO. Something tells me O didn’t get his oats on his anniversary.
Obama doesn’t get his oats from Michelle full stop. He gets them from the bunch of pretty 25 yr old boys he plays “golf” with, organised by his chum from Hawaii, who was previously arrested for soliciting male prostitutes. Just sayin’…
Link for that, please, zemplar?
Start here:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/claim-obama-hid-gay-life-to-become-president/
Then here, on the red links down the bottom: http://hillbuzz.org/is-barack-obama-gay
Have fun, and remember to bring a towel…
Thanks. If you don’t mind, I’ll wait until after I’ve eaten lunch.
The way there is so much secrecy about Obama he must have something to hide.
It’s comments like this which lefties jump on and use to ignore the good and sensible stuff we post. Zemplar, either prove your allegations or shut up!
Aren’t they just.
Mardell must be crying into his cocoa.
BBC journo Jude “I love him!” Machin has got a new Twitter avatar:
Classic. Most. Professional. Behavior. Ever.
‘BBC journalist just finished working on London 2012. Lover of all things American. Mother, wife, identical twin. My views, not the BBC’s.
Ms. Boaden, on a professional and corporate integrity basis, much less any genetic impartiality, how does this get reconciled, please?
There’s an app that lets you morph images… she gets hold of that and a shot of Miliband and the chances of scaring the horses goes through the roof.
DB, I just sent in a complaint about this. Just on the remote chance that they actually read it and the even more remote chance that they see a problem and make her remove it, I’ve taken a screenshot of her page.
If they do make Machin remove the photo, it will be more evidence that they really do have some official professional standards regarding “personal” Twitter accounts, but allow the staff to do whatever they like until caught out.
Most commentators and most of those polled think that Romney ‘won’?
There must be many more racists than we thought.
“Top Obama aide says performing in debates is ‘not the President’s strong suit’ and asks for media’s help against Mitt Romney.”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2212961/Top-Obama-aide-say-debate-performance-Presidents-strong-suit-asks-medias-help-Mitt-Romney.html#ixzz28Lz6aaAS
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
[Observation: Many of the journalists saying ‘sure thing’ to that were thought to have British accents…]
It’s like they think the Jedi Mind Trick will work.
“You don’t need to see the President win the debate.
Romney isn’t the candidate you’re looking for.
You can safely vote for The Obamessiah in Novemeber.
Move along.”
Well, Soros will be saying this on November 7 when Romney wins:
“I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if a few dozen voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.”
More like a few dozen millions of his dollars were suddenly silenced.
Obama’s trickle down government. Another Romney soundbite Ive just remembered. Why are the media in total shock at Romney’s success. I listened to it on BBC world service, they were falling over themselves giving excuses why Obama was so bad. They were almost humiliated. Great…….
They’re in shock not so much because Romney performed well but because the President was such a stuttering cluster@#$%. They all worship Him so much, warming themselves at night in the sunlight which constantly shines out of His ass, that they literally had no idea the man isn’t as incredible as they thought.
All these people who consider themselves politics wonks and media experts are stunned that the President needed more than the usual class war rhetoric and campaign lies about His opponent in order to be successful. After all, He didn’t need any such thing to debate Hillary or McCain.
They all seem to be blissfully unaware that He’s not so great when there aren’t journalists constantly chiming in, “Amen, brother,” and “He’s right, you know,” in between sound bites. Since there was nobody there to cry “Racist!” every time Romney made a touch score, all these media luvvies had to actually sit there and watch the blows land for once as opposed to helping deflect them.
I think we’re seeing a whole lot of people reveal themselves as self-deluded dupes.
Which is pretty funny because Romney spent half of last night showing how the President wasn’t being honest. Not that the Beeboids understood that, of course. He just wasn’t aggressive enough in defending His Plan For Us, right?
The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.
I Timothy IV: 1-2
From the article: “The Democratic president told a rally of some 12,000 supporters on Thursday…” Love the way the BBC just regurgitates the Dem campaign’s figures. I’ve seen some photos of the event and none give the impression of anywhere near that many people.
The article also says 40m watched the debate according to Nielsen, but TVNewswer says 60m:
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/debate-ratings-fox-news-tops-cable-news-for-first-debate-as-more-people-tune-in-than-2008_b148739
Good thing Mardell told us the debates don’t really matter, right? Otherwise I’d be very worried…..
Sorry, a little inappropriate for a site that deals exclusively with BBC bias… but I just have to alert you to the most disgustingly biased, left-wing, Obama-fawning adulation spurted by the abhorrent and silly snooty woman on Sky’s Press (Left-wing) Preview. Amazingly, she referred to Romney’s annihilation of Obamah as ‘unfortunate’ and that Obama was just too ‘intelligent’ which made him sound overly ‘academic’. On the other hand she stated that Romney was more popular because he used short and simple words! BY GOD is this the analytical standard of left-wing journalists in this country? This stupid and pathetic woman sounded like an immature 14-year-old. Unbelievable… thank the Lord we aren’t forced to fund its existence. Romney came out on top because when it came to the crunch, he knew what he was talking about and was able to state it lucidly and concisely.
The following childish and completely useless BBC website story epitomizes the infantile BBC apotheosis of Obama. No pretense at impartiality whatsoever. Also, the News at 10 tonight had the most pathetically biased feature from that irritating honey-monster lookalike, Mark Mardell. Why did they show the Obama ‘comeback’ as if he is the good guy? Why did they feel the need to defend Obama? I think we all know the politically truth behind the hysterical adulation that the snooty, London lefty dinner-table chatterboxes exude. The Left really are disgusting.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19835176
And they managed to find some unrepresentative rednecks in a Pennsylvania bar including one who claimed to be a Republican but thought Obama was better!
Biased BBC to the core.
They can’t help it: it’s in their DNA.
It does come across a defensive at best, even if it were quoted directly by the Obama camp.
For an impartial, professional broadcaster to be running a headline such as ‘Obama comes out swinging at Romney after debate’ based on an accusation by one protagonist in a debate… after the debate is over… seems extraordinary.
It’s like the pub-quiz post-mortem when all of a sudden everyone suddenly realises they could have won if they hadn’t lost by not knowing the answers in time.
Mind you, the BBC does have a tendency to invite back counters from those they support after the other party has left and has no opportunity to respond, which then forms the basis of the evening headlines instead of ‘their man’ not coming across too well.
Hardly honest.
But then, we seem to be compelled to pay in support of institutional dishonesty and/or hypocrisy across the board now.
In its latest update to the “Obama comes out swinging” article the BBC finally conceded that more than 60m watched the debate. The revised version also removed all reference to “sustained cheering” Romney received at a campaign stop. In fact, the whole section was cut. Winston Smith is alive and well and working at the BBC.
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/561815/diff/7/8
‘In fact, the whole section was cut.’
It’s around here somewhere, but one poster shared a reply from CECUTT, after all the ‘we understand, it’ll be posted in the bogs for a laff’ guff to the effect that ‘we ponder very carefully what to put in and leave out’.
This would appear to be ‘news’ content the BBC felt the UK public did not need to know.
The incumbent’s ‘swinging’, apparently, still is, after they also managed to find another 20M people in an hour.
Impressive. Uniquely so.
Nice catch, DB. I’m sure our resident professional journalists can explain the perfectly reasonable editorial decision behind this. Nicked? Scott? Jim? Prole? Anyone?
I see also that Romney gets a fact-check, but the President does not. What a shock.
Good wee article discussing Mardell’s love obsession with the Obamessiah:
http://beforeitsnews.com/eu/2012/10/bbcs-pro-obama-bias-shines-through-after-debate-2453274.html
Actually that woolly hat-sporting lass and our Mark should hook up twitter feeds topped by ‘Views are each other’s’ before strolling hand in hand into the sunset of the next Obama sunshine unveiling.
Have to wonder what the career chances of any BBC employee would be if they had a ‘I’m for Mitt’ tickertape on their feed, no matter how well they phrased their professional vs. personal status.
While the BBC is always condescending towards US talk radio, its audience and callers sometimes blow me away.
After the presidential debate, “Ruth Ann” from North Carolina rang the Dennis Miller Show.
How is this for analysis: “Both these men (Romney and Obama) are products of their regional biases. Mitt is a perfect mixture of Mormon industriousness, mid-western earnestness and work ethic and a New England noblesse oblige. While Obama is a Hawaiian hang loosy-goose and Chicago ward boss.”
Maybe I should encourage Ruth-Ann to call Dame Nicky on 5Live.
I’m sure this is racist somehow, but it’s too amusing not to share. I just hope nobody at the BBC sees this or they’ll need to call in trauma counselors.
The excuses keep coming. First the White House said that having the President remain on the defensive and not be aggressive was a deliberate strategy to make Him appear less….um….something not good. Mardell, who can be cavalier with the truth when it comes to reporting on the President, knew this but pretended it was his own analysis (“It may have been deliberate…”)
Then the National Journal suggested that the President was blind-sided by “the incumbent curse”. No, seriously:
To be fair, the deck was stacked against Obama, who came into the debate with a lead over Romney plus the baggage of incumbency.
First, voters expect sitting presidents to win debates and, indeed, polls showed that Obama was favored Wednesday. That benefits a challenger like Romney who grows in stature simply by standing next to the president.
This hack also offered up the excuse that Romney had more time to prepare than the busy President, who somehow found time for plenty of fundraising and to do a photo op at Hoover damn while whining that His staff was making Him spend too much time indoors practicing.
St. AlGore suggested that Denver’s high altitude affected his fellow Nobel laureate (what a @#$%ed up world we live in for that sentence to exist). Romney, he said, spent a few days there practicing, so was in better shape to run up and down the court…..no, wait…..move heavy equipment while….er….ah, screw it.
As if all these excuses weren’t enough, David Axelrod got on a conference call with journalists to plead for the media to help spread the word about the talking points the President failed to during the debate.
The BBC will be on the case, I’m sure.
High altitude? He must have a pedestal complex.
With our two feeding the puppy their homework like their teachers have never read ‘Just William’ stories, I am surprised they haven’t tried ‘Bo ate all his notes’ too, for good measure.
All this retro-active briefing is so silly I think it will simply compound what was already non-ideal.
I get the impression that this is less about trying to convince the public than it is an attempt by these media elites to mutually reassure themselves and gird their loins for the coming battle. One can imagine the worried discussions on conference calls, list-serves (whatever has replaced the JournoList), and DC bars.
If Obama loses thanks to the press’ kid gloves treatment, can we call this “mutually reassured destruction”?
Anyone heard the following point of view – and key information – from Mark Mardell?
Obama pays price for ducking the questions
For the past four years, he has worked assiduously to avoid being questioned, maintaining a regal detachment from the media and other sources of dissent and skeptical inquiry.
Obama has set a modern record for refusal to be quizzed by the media, taking questions from reporters far less often than Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and even George W. Bush. Though his opponent in 2008 promised to take questions from lawmakers like the British prime minister does, Obama has shied from mixing it up with members of Congress, too.
This from Dana Milbank – a high-profile political “journalist”, a JournoLista and well known to the BBC – of the Washington Post. Mardell will have read this, and I refuse to believe that he’s unaware of what Milbank’s talking about. Yet the BBC’s US President editor has never once mentioned that the President has been dodging the press and everyone else like this.
Mardell did, however, make a full blog post about the press being unhappy with Romney for not being so available during one campaign swing. This man could not be more biased and unworthy of your trust.
I wonder how they will cover the post-debate bounce for Romney.
By ignoring it entirely and focusing on presenting the latest news that might support the President, of course, as well as getting out the word that the President is back in form while Romney is admitting a mistake about the 47%er remark.
UPDATE: They’ll cover it by putting the poll numbers from September 28 showing the President with a three point lead, to accompany a long article trying to make hay out of Romney walking back his 47%er remark.
Agenda? What agenda?
Or how he wants to fire Big Bird.
He likes Big Bird. He just doesn’t want to be forced to pay for him.
It took guts for Romney to say all that in front of Jim Lehrer, since the PBS News Hour (for ages it was the MacNeil-Lehrer Report) has been a pretty quality, if a bit narrowly-focused compared to the big boys, news program for as long as I can remember. I’m pretty sure, though, that only a small fraction of its funding comes from tax grants and most of their production costs come from donations and the usual gigantic quasi-charitable foundation support.
Although, it’s not like Lehrer would have gone all Gwen Ifill on him (anyone who saw the 2008 VP debate will know what I mean). He’s got integrity. Romney probably knew that, but he was playing to the audience, not to the moderator. Calling for the end of government funding of PBS has been a conservative fetish for years and years and everyone knows it, so it might have backfired on him.
Media bias has sunk Obama. No, really!
See “The Check Has Bounced” at:
http://john-moloney.blogspot.com/
It’s now Romney’s race to lose.
Or is it “loose”?
Or is it loos? Gotta go now.
This is the best one yet: the President didn’t actually lose the debate at all:
Obama-Romney I: The president’s stealth TKO
But beyond that, despite the first-blush anointing of the former Massachusetts governor as the winner, a look at last night against the backdrop of Obama’s previous bouts on the debate stage reveals something else again. Now, like before (in the 2008 derby), Obama displayed an uncanny ability to go internal, to get quiet when the prevailing wisdom screamed for volume and presence. To feel his opponent out. To let his opponent punch himself out. And Romney happily obliged.
In ways that the chattering class can’t even understand right now, Romney’s performance last night redounds hugely to the president’s favor. In ways no one is talking about yet, Mitt Romney may have performed the last aria in a disastrous political campaign opera by doubling down — or quintupling down — on his proven willingness to say anything to anyone at any given time, even when what he says is directly, immediately contradicted by the public record.
Last night, Mitt Romney may have finally defeated Mitt Romney.
If only the BBC knew about this. They’d feel so much better and wouldn’t be looking at ridiculous handkerchief footage.