That line from Isaiah, 42:13, just about sums up the BBC’s breathless anticipation of tonight’s debate rematch between the President and His enemy political opponent. Jude Sheerin in Washington (another one? how many Beeboids are there in the US now? -ed) is here to reassure the faithful that the President will come out fighting.
Obama team raises expectations for debate with Romney
We get assurances from both the President’s mouthpiece as well as from Romney’s camp that the President will do better. Not a single word is given to the viewpoint that the President’s previous failure was due to a lack of substance, not just a problem with style. Tonight’s debate is supposed to focus on foreign policy, the President’s number one Achilles heel at the moment, but since it’s town-hall style with audience questions, I’m not sure how much anyone can guarantee that this will be the case.
Oh, wait, yes there is a way to guarantee how the audience will behave: let CNN pick them and put in a few Democrat operatives like they did last time. The moderator has already said that she’s looking to break some rules and take control of the agenda anyway. It fills one with such confidence…..
Sheerin’s piece is full of bits about what the President will do better tonight, and nothing about Romney. Is there another article about his side of things that I’ve missed somewhere?
The most recent poll figures the BBC has on offer shows the President up by two points, but it’s from October 7. Missing is an entire week of Romney improvement, to the point where he’s now virtually tied with or leading the President in some areas. But the BBC doesn’t want you to know that, so they leave things as they are.
Amazingly, one big, massive, ginormous issue gets tacked on at the very end of this: Hillary Clinton falls on her sword over Benghazi. This is buck-passing at it’s finest. I guess she’s just decided that her presidential aspirations are dead now. She’ll never be able to run with this on her record. Of course we’re meant to understand here that it’s not His fault, and so any accusations about it coming from Romney will be “fact-checked” under the bus along with her.
Meanwhile, the BBC’s US President editor has had to swallow hard and admit that Romney’s performance last time really did help a lot, and polls do show him in the lead. It only took Mardell two weeks to get with reality. So why does that key information have to stay relegated to a blog post and isn’t updated on the official election page?
But Mardell still can’t quite accept it.
On the surface it is just odd that a single debate would have produced such a big shift.
No, it isn’t odd at all, if one has been paying attention to reality. The BBC, on the other hand, has kept it from you. I don’t think there’s a single person here who is surprised by this at all, yet the BBC’s top man in the US just doesn’t get it.
Mardell is also stuck on the superficial, still providing excuses for his Obamessiah.
But perhaps it was simply that he wanted to appear presidential and above petty argument, but missed the mark by enough to seem disengaged and aloof.
This is idiotic. What does he mean by “petty”? Engaging with Romney is beneath Him? Such a statement actually makes the President look even worse, but to Mardell this is acceptable. “The Emperor didn’t want to soil his new clothes, so stayed back from the field. A wise move, but made him look hesitant to some.”
This next bit is interesting to me.
…but I’ve heard an intriguing explanation from Republican strategists. They argue that people who voted for Mr Obama last time in a spirit of hope are looking for permission not to do so again.
His lack of engagement, lack of answers, and lack of enthusiasm in the debate was so different from the mood he inspired in 2008, that it allows them to justify a switch without suggesting they made a mistake.
In other words, nothing He’s done in the last four years has any bearing at all on whether or not someone might be disappointed and not vote for Him this time. Unbelievable.
Amusingly, Mardell is also pre-emptively criticizing Romney about Benghazi. He says that Romney will have to be more clear, do a better job explaining what lessons we need to learn from it. Wrong. Romney needs to show that the Administration is a shambles more than how he’d do it differently next time.
They just don’t get it, can’t accept it. Everything they’ve been investing their emotions and energy in for the last five years is all coming crashing down around them, and they simply don’t know how to deal with it. Maybe the President can turn things around and His team has come up with some real substance to lay out tonight. Maybe there will be some smart audience questions that will put Romney on the back foot. I don’t know, but I have my doubts.
Therefore, my dear brothers and sisters, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain.
I Corinthians: 58-60
BBC-Democrat, Clinton, Obama and Libya.
1.) ‘The Blaze’:
“DON’T BUY HILLARY CLINTON’S MEA CULPA ON BENGHAZI”
http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/dont-buy-hilary-clintons-mea-culpa-on-benghazi/
2.) BBC-Democrat:
“Hillary Clinton takes responsibility for Libya US deaths”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19958739
I’d like to know what the President has on Hillary to make her commit political suicide. After all the work Bill Clinton has been doing on His behalf for the last month or so, this doesn’t smell right. And so conveniently right before this debate which is supposed to have a focus on foreign policy.
In his inset “Analysis”, Mardell admits that the White House’s story has been all over the place. So why hasn’t he been talking about it all week?
I also like how the News Online editor decided to put in three quotes from US media outlets giving yet more hopeful advice to the President: the WaPo, Politico, and the LA Times. The JournoList lives on.
The funniest one is from the JournoList-infested Politico, giving what appears on the surface to be advice to either candidate to reach out to women voters, specifically the unmarried ones. People who trust the BBC for their news on US issues won’t know that women are pushing Romney into the lead in swing states, which puts a different perspective on that advice.
David
I think Hillary’s acceptance of responsibility for the Benghazi debacle is perhaps a shrewd move. Everyone knows it was all appalling – but at least she has the guts (or the cunning) to appear to take some blame. In the long run – that will look respectable. But Obama’s pose – and all his lying briefing to the media – still looks dreadful. It is now clear that there was real-time reporting of what was happening in Benghazi that evening – and it was being followed live not only by teams in Hillary’s Sate Depart,ment but also by a lot of people in the White House situation rooms. Yet Obama lied through his teeth next day about the non-existent riot over the Mohammed YouTube video – he jetted off to Las Vegas for another fundraiser while the consulate was still burning and the American bodies were hardly cold. Romney will try to make hay of him over this tonight.
I dunno. How can Hillary run for President in 2016 without someone throwing this in her face every day? Not even a compliant media can hide this kind of….oh, wait….
If Romney asks the President why He didn’t meet with His intel people before running off to Vegas, what’s He gonna do: say, “Hillary told me it was okay to go”?
Husband Bill wanted her to run against Obama but she didn’t.
She is probably praying Obama loses so she is in with a chance in 2016.
“How can Hillary run for President in 2016 without someone throwing this in her face every day? ”
The other day I reviewed the 2008 primary debates between Barry and Hillary – do you know how much I’d forgotten? Like it was Hillary who brought up the “birther” thing? Don’t get me wrong. I knew I knew, but I’d forgotten what I knew, like I’d forgotten Biden ripping off Kinnock’s speech.
I don’t want to sound cynical (lol) but a sunshine citizen makeover Hillary will good to go. She may look like Golda Meir but that means she sure to get the Jewish vote.
As they say “a week in politics is a long time”. Four years is an eternity.
Clinton has taken responsibility not to take the heat off Obama, but to pile it on. That’s how this works.
“I’d like to know what the President has on Hillary to make her commit political suicide.”
I wonder if it’s anything to do with Ms Clinton’s close relationship with her aide, Ms Abedin?:
“Huma Abedin update: Why is she still Advising Hillary Clinton?”
by Shoebat Foundation Feb 2012.
[Excerpt]:-
“For all intents and purposes, we identified Anthony Weiner’s wife and Hillary Clinton’s closest aid, Huma Abedin as a spy for the Muslim Brotherhood in June of 2011. Surely, she would have been jettisoned from the State Department after we proved that her mother is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and that her familial ties to the group are so extensive that it would be a miracle if Abedin is NOT an Islamic enemy of the United States.”
http://www.shoebat.com/2012/02/26/huma-abedin-update-why-is-she-still-advising-hillary-clinton/
No, the President has way more skeletons in His closet she can use as leverage. Maybe I’m just not wonky enough to understand.
I wonder if she has worked out that this thing is still going to run and that she knows someone is going to find the smoking gun that has Axelrod and the Prez’s prints all over it.
Once that’s out and they turn to Clinton to see why did you take the heat it becomes much more plausible to say “They made me”. She looks bullied or more stately and the Oval office get double helpings of the blame.
I understand Obama is putting money Clinton’s way for campaigning.
Why can’t the BBC be truthful ?
1 Romney has surged in virtually all the polls – nationwide and in the crucial swing states. He is now hitting 50% in a lot of polls. Gallup’s tracking poll shows him 4 points ahead – a HUGE shift from 2 weeks ago.
2 So Romney has the Big Mo, 3 weeks out from the election. Unless Obama triumphs in the debate – which is highly unlikely – Romney will stay ahead or even continue to upward momentum.
3 You can’t put Humpty together again. Obama was exposed in the first debate as a busted flush, an empty suit, (think Clint Eastwood), an incoherent fool, the puny Wizard behind the curtain – and the President with nothing but negatives, a piss-poor track record and STILL no constructive proposals for the future. An awful lot of Americans have got their eyes open at last. The image, the illusions about Obama have been shattered. You can’t now put the clock back.
4 Team Obama vastly outspent Romney in earlier months, with incessant and often lying ad attacks on Romney. They are now even on cash-in-hand – and all the earlier attacks have not really dented Romney.
5 The ground-game – getting the vote out on the day – does not appear to favour Obama in the way it did last time. And there is a clear advantage for Romney in terms of the relative enthusiasm of the base, whereas McCain lacked it.
6 How can the BBC audience understand the new mess Obama is in over lies piled on lies over Benghazi – the BBC has failed to report properly on what has been the main political story for weeks ! Any advantage Obama had in terms of foreign affairs and national security has been shot to pieces. He appears as a lying wimp, now hiding behind Hillary’s skirts. “The buck stops over there with her” !
7 Oh – and “Its The Economy, Stupid”
…………………………………..
If Romney does well in the debate(s) again – and he is better at extempore speaking, thinks faster than Obama – the election could well turn into a rout. Many already think that is well possible – but as usual, no hint of this in BBC “reporting”.
Nice summary. The BBC can’t provide this even with the battalion of Beeboids working on the US scene.
The President’s biggest obstacle tonight might just be the insanely lofty expectations placed on Him. That’s part of why He looked so bad the first time: all the media luvvies fully expected Him to be amazing, inspirational, firm hand at the tiller. He couldn’t be. Why do you think the President kept wobbling on one leg? Not much to stand on when it comes to His record. Now they expect Him not only to climb out of the hole but to throw Romney in it. I’d be choosing wallpaper and curtains for that big estate in Hawaii right about now.
Coming out more aggressive and hitting Romney on Bain while simultaneously crowing that Benghazi was Hillary’s fault and He didn’t even know what was going on for a few days is not going to please anyone other than the choir.
too true dave, they believe him a genius, when he s really an empty jacket.
If all else fails he could always try the race card? maybe slip into his faux
deep south accent? “whaars he at, yaall”
mileage in that, look at poor Stacey Dash not long after, stating she supports Romney Obama supporters began insulting Dash for her opinion, saying she isn’t “black” enough, Uncle Tom-ing, head back to the fields Jigaboo etc.
You just gotta love the “tolerance” of the left, showing their TRUE colours … yikes!
is that racist? 😀
Romney is going to cane this election out the door. Obama is going to be blown away. He will win by a landslide.
And tonights snow job(File On Four) continues to peddle the tired notion that a YouTube clip ended up in killing th US Ambassador and his colleagues.
The dozy Beeb poppet was sent around the Salafists of Egypt to say why Sharia must be implemented, why that useless excuse of a “film” was the ONLY excuse needed to kill the rest of us….oh, and why a Western dolly like herself would not be getting an interview…so she waited patiently by the mosque wheelie bin until an Imam gave her his shoes to clean…but no Womans Hour squauk about that!…respect cultural diversity , an` all!
This Radio 4 pessary for Islam stuff reveals the lack of curiosity, of any independent though: and the laziest patchwork of cliches and excuses that the BBC continues to stitch up for the Caliphate…now that Tony Benn doesn`t need his quilted shawl for the Durham Miners Gala.
Desperate fare…
It would be funny if it was not so deadly serious.
How is it that so many BBC “news” staff have not got a clue about what is happening ? How can any BBC “reporter” still think that Benghazi was caused by the YouTube video ? – when it was clear from Day 2 that there was no “riot” – it was a pre-planned Al Qaeda attack rooted in the drone killing of a senior Libyan jihadist in Pakistan.
Didn’t anyone at the BBC see this stated explicitly by the Prime Minister of Libya ? On Day 2 .
Maybe not. They don’t follow the real news, just the Team Obama talking points.
I’ve been listening to the Mark Levin podcast the last few weeks to get US election news from the horses mouth rather than the biased BBC.
It’s well worth a listen even though Mark can get a bit shouty at times.
As ever, the Happy Warrior, Mark Steyn, cuts through the sheer mass of drivel, to tell it as it is……
“According to the New York Times, “the magic is gone.” According to the New York Post, “the thrill is gone.” And yet, according to the polls, he isn’t a goner. Even if you shave off two-three-four points for Democrat over-sampling and other pollster malarkey, the unmagical non-thrilling President Obama remains remarkably competitive.”
Mark rightly points out that even at this stage, you can always count on Republican’s to shoot themselves in the foot.
He also points out that this is a test of the American people:
” The conventional line is that this election is a referendum on Obama. But it’s also, as Jay Nordlinger wrote, a test of the people. In advanced Western societies spending themselves into oblivion, the political class has looted the future to bribe the present and the electorate has largely gone along with it. The question for voters now is a very simple one: Can they get real before it’s over?”
Serious people now understand that this election will be the last election where America is top dog, unless there is massive course correction.
When you are drowning in $16 trillion debt, and that the Chinese might be soon recalling those loans because they are in economic trouble, the mayhem in Benghazi is just a taste of what the future holds for us.
It’s not as though Romney is setting the place alight either:
“Romney decided a long time ago that his general line on the incumbent is that he’s a nice guy who’s in way over his head. This might even work — that’s to say, it may enable Mitt to thread the needle and get to 270 electoral votes. But it happens not to be true, so that even the terms in which Romney has chosen to frame the election are a preemptive cringe and a concession to the other side. As I say, Mitt could yet pull it off. But the confidence underpinning the Democratic convention — that the bleak certainty of dependency without end has more appeal than the possibility of economic revival — says nothing good about where America’s headed.”
2016 is going to be the key date-the date where the US hands over the global order to the Politburo in China, Putin in Russia and the mullah’s in Iran. I am sure for a short while those on the middle class Left will be cheering from the rafters-until Laurie Penny and Owen Jones’s pals end up in body bags…….
Worth reading Steyn-“After America” is essential reading, and certainly better than any of the shit being dished up the BBC, Indy and the Guardian.
http://www.steynonline.com/5173/the-audacity-of-hopelessness
I like Steyn, but on this, he’s being a Tokyo Rose Republican. Romney is going to win, and win big.
I’d love Romney to win, but alas, I think the left have perfected the art of lying, smearing and scaremongering to such a degree that they will get a muslim back in the White House.
I don’t think that is the whole case.
I think that the Conservative Right both here and in the US, needs to put a far stronger moral case for fiscal conservatism.
Socialists are fond of using words like “community”, “social justice”, “human rights”,”fairness” etc……words that are the mantra of the BBC.
Yet what is “fair” about robbing our children’s future to pay for the present?
How can their be one ‘community’ if a guy has to get up at five in the morning, and retires when he dies, to pay for diversity officer retirement plan at the age of 65, so he can have 20 or more years of his life in leisure?
How can there be any sort of ‘justice’, social or otherwise, if the omnipresent state runs everything without any accountability?
Reagan and Thatcher always put moral case first, but it seems that we are afraid to use words like “enterprise”, “responsibility” “freedom” and other conservative ideals.
I thought the same six months ago. But then I scratched the surface, and discovered I was wrong. The MSM’s job is to make you believe that Romney can’t win. They’re desperate for their God King to stay on his throne. But it ain’t gonna happen. The reality on the ground is far different to the fantasy world of the telly and papers. Obama is finished. Romney will be the next POTUS.
Romney might win, but I don’t think with the sort of mandate that he needs to carry out the course correction that America (and by extension the West) needs.
While the Republican Party continues on the centrist course, then nothing will change, it will carry on outspending the planet and remain hooked on Big Government until the US OD’s itself and passes on in history.
In the future there will be an “America”, but it will be the land of gated communities housing the political establishment, while surrounded in a sea of mass unemployment and crime ridden streets.
The US of the future will just be a giant Detroit, in much the same way as what is left of these impoverished islands will look like Greater Glasgow.
If you don’t believe that this is our future-I suggest you drive around the streets of Croydon, Oldham, St Paul’s in Bristol or a 1001 other sink estates.
Having said all that, while people like Allan West, Rand Paul, Jim DeMint, Lynn Jenkins, Michele Bachmann in Congress and the Senate, then there is still a chance.
This is why people associated with the Tea Party movement worked so hard to transform the House of Reps in 2010, much to the BBC’s chagrin. I don’t know if the Republicans will take the Senate this time, but they’ll definitely keep the House. Mark my words, the Tea Party people are itching to vote already. If Romney does win and tries to renege on his fiscally-conservative promise, they and others will hold his feet to the fire. That’s probably our only hope.
Agreed.
My hope isn’t really on Romney, but on Paul Ryan. For the first time in history, I actually think that the VP election is actually more important that the Commander in Chief.
I had to laugh when the Dem’s attacked Ryan for being a follower of the ‘Ayn Rand cult’…….
“Romney might win, but I don’t think with the sort of mandate that he needs to carry out the course correction that America (and by extension the West) needs.”
Be prepared for a surprise. Romney’s feet will be held to the fire. The conservative intake have no patience for more of the same. Have you seen who they are? Check them out.
Its not the Tea Party intake that worries me, but in order to win in a country where the margins are so narrow, in order to appeal to the Independents, then there will have to be a watering down of Ryan’s plans.
Like I said, I am a huge fan of West, Bachmann and the rest of the Tea Party Caucus, but when most of the population is so reliant on Big Government, its not so easy to pull off that trick.
Romney is no Reagan, any more than Cameroon is a Thatcher.
At least the president finally came out and admitted that he wants to reinstate the “assault” weapon ban. That’ll sell tens of thousands of them between now and November 6th. That’s *my* kind of economic stimulus …
Either Obama did slightly better this time round or the BBC and its friends in the US media were determined to big up Barry’s performance come what may. Unlike the first time round, the news on radio 4 cheerily featured the debate at item #2 (rather than a mumbled item #4) and there was a lengthy item on Today concerning the debate and a mention of the immediate post-debate polls (on which, if I remember correctly, the BBC were silent or dismissive first time round). Also a rep from the New York Times was wheeled in to confirm Mardell’s opinion that Obama had done quite well.
It’s a marked criticism of the BBC “impartiality” agenda that I don’t believe a word and that I’ll be viewing the debate sometime today to gather the truth of what actually happened. Getting in the US equivalent of the Guardian to re-assess the state of play and the relative performances of Mitt and Barry doesn’t convince me but, there again, I’d seriously consider second checking the BBC/Guardian/NYT axis if it informed me that the sun will rise tomorrow.
The President did better from a superficial performance perspective, which is key for media types. But anyone who is actually informed – meaning not BBC staff or their audience – will have heard the President talk a load of crap and will not be inspired by His Plan For Us. True believers like BBC journalists and producers, though, will see it as a clear victory.
Have they mentioned yet that both the Luntz panel and the MSNBC group of undecided voters now favor Romney (the utter lie from the MSNBC host that it was “a draw” notwithstanding)?
“Media use liberal academics to opine about Obama, but hide their campaign contributions.”
By Dan Gainor
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/10/16/media-use-liberal-academics-to-opine-about-obama-but-hide-their-campaign/#ixzz29XkSD3V3
BBC-Democrat would never do anything like that, would it? Would it Mr Schama?
Why is my money going on this infantile and biased drivel?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19973963
I’m sick of the BBC writing as if we are all behind Obama. This article is loaded with Left-wing desparation and adulation.
“Obama’s back everybody!”
I watched the debate, an I came away thinking it really wasn’t worth it?
Yes, Obama managed to come out of his catatonic state, but as Commander in Chief, he seemed to come across as the challenger, and not the incumbent.
Compare his performance with Reagan against Mondale, or even Clinton v Dole, where both men addressed the American people rather than their rivals, Barry failed to do this.
American’s want their President to look like a President, rising above the fray, and offer a better future. The don’t like their Presidents to engage in bitter personal attacks.
On the key issue, the economy and jobs, Obama still looked lackluster, and on the Benghazi attack, while Romney certainly didn’t land the killer blow, the fact that there is all manner of confusion on what the White House actual line is, and that Obama’s attack line looks far more shaky post debate, does not bode well.
Still I think its all to play for, but one thing is for certain, this will only motivate the Republican’s GOTV operation even more.
The last echo had barely died down in the hall when the besotted droid was on with,
‘a win there for Barack Obama’.
Not ‘win’ you notice, but win.
A crucial distinction for us droid-slotterers 😉
My reading :
1 Yes, Obama was more combative this time. But sometimes whiny, high-pitched. Other than more taxes he had no policies for the next 4 years – “more of the same”
2 Romney was solid, fiercely challenged Obama on details eg oil and gas permits, made a more positive case for the economy and repeatedly slammed Obama’s economic failures. All couched in “I want a better future for ALL Americans” to combat the 47% gambit that Obama still pushes to the bitter end
3 Apparently polling afterwards was a 3-way split – Romney, Obama and “Don’t Know” each getting about a third of the vote on the question “who won ?”
4 But when asked “Who won on economic issues” Romney won by a 2 to 1 margin. A HUGE margin if “It’s the Economy Stupid” that really decides things.
5 Obama looks really vulnerable if the slight dip to 7.8% unemployment after 43 months above 8% is reversed next month – 3 or 4 days before the election the last unemployment figures are released and if they return above 8% Obama is toast
6 Romney badly fluffed the Libya stuff – the Libya stuff the BBC has been avoiding for weeks, and has still not covered properly. Obama spuriously claimed he was saying Benghazi was a terrorist attack from the outset, and he was supported by Candy Crowley the moderator. But everyone is pouncing on this – his first statement was ambivalent and a a fortnight later on The View he was saying it was the silly YouTube clip, and he mentioned the clip 6 times in his UN speech. Plus, it was obvious that Susan Rice the UN Ambassador was briefed by the White House to tell no less than all 5 Sunday channels’ politics programmes that it was unclear what had happened, that there were riots caused by the video. Crowley has since walked back on her absurd intervention. I think Romney will be better briefed on this for the final debate on Monday. In any event, the more Libya is a live issue, the worse it is for Obama
In sum – Obama did much better than last time, but he has not persuaded the American people that Romney is all evil. Big ad spending on demonising Romney and surrogates accusing him of tax dodging and lying have not really worked. But Romney’s attacks on Obama’s empty-suit record are working now.
And Obama still has no plans for the future.
Here are a couple of clips of a post-debate focus group run by Frank Luntz – it looks bad for Obama as these people are mostly ex-Obama voters
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/16/luntz_focus_group_of_mostly_former_obama_voters_switch_to_romney.html
The problem, John, is that the President really does have a plan for the future. He was pretty clear about it last night. It’s His Plan For Us that’s the problem. Voters seem to be getting it, while the Beeboids don’t.
This is the best account of the debate I have seen. Especially as it contains verbatim the killer monologue that Romney delivered half-way through, filleting Obama’s whole record. I was very impressed how fluently and convincingly Romney delivered this. It must have damaged Obama in terms of economic competence.
At no point did Obama come anywhere near this fluency. He was just trotting out the usual stuff – class warfare, Romney is not nice to women, it’s all Bush’s fault, and a lot of demonstrable lies, Yada Yada Yada.
THAT is why all the indications are that Romney won 2 to 1 on economic issues. Which the BBC is not telling us, even though it is all over the Web.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/16/Romney-big-winner
Shapiro is very wrong there about the gas prices exchange. The President wasn’t saying at all that gas prices cratered the economy. He was obviously saying that was a symptom. Romney missed a massive opportunity there when he failed to point out that extremely high gas prices were in fact the President’s – and his Energy Sec.’s – plan all along.
“Energy prices will necessarily skyrocket.”
“Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”
Romney struck out looking on that one.
Of course, BBC-Democrat’s Mardell (Team Obama) calls it for his Obamessiah, seeing no problem with Obama on Libya.
‘Fox News’ has relevant information on the debate and Libya issue:
“FACT CHECK: Did Obama really call consulate attack in Libya an ‘act of terror’?”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/16/fact-check-did-obama-really-call-consulate-attack-in-libya-act-terror/
Jonny Dymond on 5Liive’s Up All Night immediately after the debate:
“I think that the President clearly won this debate and at times left Romney, Mitt Romney, frankly reeling at times from a very well thought out and well presented assault issues like tax, on immigration and particularly on Libya, where Mr Romney really did make some fairly serious error in fact and had to be corrected by the moderator, Candy Crowley.”
Jonny later refers to the Libya thing as a howler from Romney. Candy Crowley has since rowed back on her intervention: “He [Romney] was right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word”. And from the transcript of Obama’s speech in the Rose Garden, I’d like to ask Jonny and Rhod Sharp what exactly they think Obama was selling here:
…..And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.
Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.
All the polling in the US suggests effectively a tie, maybe a slight edge to Obama but Romney definitely winning on all the economic issues.
So what bloody planet is Jonny Diamond living on ? What he means is he WANTS Obama to be declared winner. Just like the BBC WANTED Romney to be declared down and out some weeks ago.
Ain’t gonna happen, Jonny. Open your “journalist” eyes, smell the coffee – and look to wider sources, not just your liberal buddies.
Like I said, only someone who is properly informed will have seen through the President’s BS. Spending even more money on non-corporeal Green jobs (which He mentioned at least three times) is a good plan? More taxing the rich when we know that would be only a microscopic drop in a giant bucket? And another Beeboid being willfully blind about Libya.
Jonny must have been smoking some real strong shit last night.
I’ll let this line from the BBC’s US President editor pass without comment:
I suspect our judgment on this is more finely balanced, more like a theatre review.
Is that like a theatre review where the critic says “this awful show brings a whole new meaning to entertainment” and the billboard prints “brings a whole new meaning to entertainment”?
Mardell is a fool and a biased hack for saying the following:
Then the most curious spat of the night as Romney insisted Obama hadn’t called it terrorism, while Obama and the moderator Candy Crowley insisted that he had.
In fact, Obama had used the term “act of terror” in a loose way the day after the attack, while also suggesting it was the result of the anti-Islamic videos.
Republicans insist this is a fruitful area of attack although it leaves me slightly mystified why they think this is so important.
The American media now accept the idea that this attack had nothing to do with the video.
Remember that everyone at the time, even reporters on the scene, thought it did. The distinction between an attack by al-Qaeda and an attack by enraged Islamic militants seems a little naïve and artificial. But there is no doubt the moderator came down on Obama’s side over the issue.
He’s “mystified”? More like completely clueless. How can Mardell not see the problem of an Administration lying to the public over and over again? The facts were out there for all to see long before the media, as he put it, accepted that this was a predetermined attack and that the video excuse was a retcon?
Is Mardell this blind, or is he being willfully dishonest with himself and us? What unbelievable arrogance to say that it’s okay for the President – with all the intelligence briefings and communication from the Embassy and security team and all that – not to know what was going on simply because the effing media didn’t know right away. Never mind that the point is also largely about the lying for several days and not just that one speech. That has to be one of the dumbest things he’s ever said. Talk about living in a bubble.
Oh, well, I guess it’s Lo, the Conqu’ring Hero Comes for the BBC today.
Just a note of caution here for those thinking Romney may be taking the lead. We’re coming into the Chicago Politics slander time zone. Please recall the NYT front page story about McCain having an affair with a lobbyist. That was two weeks before the election. I’m expecting an Obama planted scandal popping up any day now.
An affair would be my first guess but it wouldn’t be a total surprise if they accused him of killing Jon Benet Ramsay. The NYT will publish whatever they’re fed and back off after the election, just as they did with the McCain story.
If they don’t do this, or if it’s ineffectual, I’m calling it for Mitt with over 315 electoral college votes.
I’m waiting for such and October Surprise as well. But the MSM is having to spend a huge amount of energy playing defense for the President, so may not have enough time or space to really make an effective smear on Romney.
I hear what you’re saying but I don’t think it will happen. Romney has been in the lead for ages, the debates are just white noise. Obama is over, and Romney will be the next POTUS.
Funny how they never have anything on say……Barney Franks.
If memory serves me correctly, wasn’t it former Congressman Weiner who mistakenly sent photo’s of his privates to about 6 women?
Funny how the BBC missed that……..
The BBC didn’t miss it entirely, just censored all news of it until reality forced them to mention it. Whereas, they rushed to report that fake John McCain sex scandal within minutes of reading it in the NY Times.
You can tell the President didn’t knock it out of the park last night when Naughtie opens the Today broadcast this morning by saying that the President “put in a….stronger performance”, according to polls (the …. indicates his pause, not an elision). Anything besides a Madame Tussaud’s figure would have put in a stronger performance. Not the same thing as saying He did well or won or anything like that.
Guardian ‘seriously discussing’ end to print edition
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/media/9614953/Guardian-seriously-discussing-end-to-print-edition.html
Karma is coming to collect
what’ll we do for toilet paper now?
Print off pictures of nu-liebour freaks.
They can concentrate on their broadcasting arms then. BBC1, BBC2, BBC3 etc.
In my forty six years of life, I’ve only ever known one person buy The Guardian and that was over thirty years ago…..he’s been dead for ten years.
I must admit to reading their website, but only for a good laugh at the comments section which just reminds me how insane Guardian readers are.
What a very small world you must live in.
I get the same amusement coming here. It is a tonic
Have read any of Karl Marx’s books or any of the Frankfurt school stuff?
I bet your column is a blast, and probably as informative as the Dandy…..
I always preferred the Beano myself. I thought the Dandy was a bit sub-standard
Such high editorial standards…….gosh.
I am sure the Orwell Prize awaits such , oh wait a minute, that requires political writing of outstanding quality.
Better luck next time, although after the death of Saddam, Mark Steel could certainly use another scriptwriter to brush up on those lefty laugh out loud gags….
Mark Steel i hope he ruins his TV career like his father did with the sex pistols.
‘I thought the Dandy was a bit sub-standard ‘
Yes, it’s not the full quote, but there was not space to fit for accuracy.
Serves a purpose still, though. Especially if it sours the post-match post mortem tonics between the day shift.
It feels good to have returned and get handed such material.
I used to read the old Manchester Guardian, it was one of the world’s great newspapers.
Today’s Guardian is a pale shadow, with loons like Monbiot and Toynbee and a lot of downright anti-Semitism.
Not fit to line a budgie’s cage.
Ha! Well now you know two. I have always read it, started at school and although I dont agree with much of what it says, its still a fun newspaper.
I actually like Toynbee, whose articles are well researched and informative and Toynbee has, almost uniquely among left wing journos, been critical of mass immigration, albeit low key.
It has gone badly downhill though, more self censoring, certainly pussy footing over immigration and obsessed with sending out a ‘positive’ message on multicultiism. But hey, know your enemy!
“uniquely among left wing journos, been critical of mass immigration, albeit low key.”
So low key in fact, that you need IR goggles to notice it.
Honestly, Toynbee has all the charm of a smallpox outbreak, her underpaid intern has the research skills of David Icke, and she is about as much fun as watching A Serbian Film with a group of Broadmoor inmates……
That’s cruel.
But true
Presidential debate.
Economy. The first loss is the most obvious. Mitt Romney absolutely dismembered Obama on economics. Obama wasn’t merely outclassed. He was out-leagued. Take, for example, the Romney-Obama exchange on gas drilling. After Obama blathered on about how he’d been great for oil supply (false), Romney gutted him with a single line:
Romney:
The proof of whether a strategy is working or not is what the price is that you’re paying at the pump. If you’re paying less than you paid a year or two ago, why, then, the strategy is working. But you’re paying more. When the president took office, the price of gasoline here in Nassau County was about $1.86 a gallon. Now, it’s $4.00 a gallon
Obama’s response was perhaps the worst economic gaffe in modern debate history:
Obama:
Well, think about what the governor — think about what the governor just said. He said when I took office, the price of gasoline was $1.80, $1.86. Why is that? Because the economy was on the verge of collapse, because we were about to go through the worst recession since the Great Depression, as a consequence of some of the same policies that Governor Romney’s now promoting. So, it’s conceivable that Governor Romney could bring down gas prices because with his policies, we might be back in that same mess
This is perhaps the stupidest economic argument ever. Obama is essentially arguing that gas prices were low four years ago because low gas prices ruined the economy. He even says that if Romney brings down gas prices, it would ruin the economy again. This is pure insanity.
So Obama thinks that the higher the petrol price the better for the economy.
Except that’s not what the President was saying. He was saying that the low gas prices were a symptom of the bad economy, not the cause. He even used the word “consequence”. Shapiro is the one making a stupid argument here.
The Obamessiah’s economic ignorance and mendacity was on display in other ways, such as His insistence on repeating His Green Jobs Plan For Us in spite of all the bankruptcies and over $7 billion in tax money down the toilet, or His claim that Romney wants to continue Bush’s spending policies and high debt/deficit.
The Liberal elite over here seem to think that their Bazza won.
Apparently , their mans rope a dope ploy a few weeks ago when he was dopey and on the ropes was a tactical ploy worthy of the Great Contender.
Obama is a prize guy, tactically outsmarting the Mormon and worthy of four more years…by then the country won`t be worth fighting for anyway.
McKinnon was right to trey to stay away for a while!
This is what we pay the BBC for…zoot alors!
John Sununu keeps smacking down liberal “news” hosts who are so obviously in the tank for Obama, keep using the Team Obama talking points. Last time I saw him with Soledad O’Brien he suggested she should wear an Obama sticker across her forehead.
This time he describes CNN as Obama’s Groupie Channel !
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/10/17/Sununu-Tells-CNNs-Soledad-OBrien-Its-Always-Good-to-Come-On-The-Groupie-Channel
Meanwhile the latest Gallup tracking poll shows Romney up 6 yes 6 points, 51 to 45 ! The poll uses a large sample and claims a margin-of-error of plus or minus only 2% :
http://www.gallup.com/poll/157817/election-2012-likely-voters-trial-heat-obama-romney.aspx
Yes it might be an “outlier” – but that is not why the BBC hacks won’t report it.
In other news David Cattleprod bullies Gallup.
But seriously The Wohn didn’t win and all the “progressives” across the planet are in shock.
I told an acquaintance of mine 4 years ago that he committed intellectual suicide at the age of 30, would like to see him now blowing some fuses.
I also told him The Wohn will be the end of “progressivism” and the neocoms will need to find another word to cower and reinvent themselves.
Hey David P,
If (when) Romney wins, how do you think Mardell will spin it? What will he blame? Maybe we should start a book on excuses…
It’ll be a combination of racism and the President inheriting a disaster economy from Bush that no mere mortal could fix in four short years with an intransigent Congress dedicated to His downfall.
There, that’s four years of Mardell reporting in one sentence.
Oh, and we weren’t worthy of Him, didn’t understand, didn’t have the necessary patience.
There is another, albeit slim, possibility: you see, the Ideology is perfect but maybe, just maybe, Barack Obama (pbuh) wasn’t the second most perfect human being ever born, but a mere mortal who didn’t narrate a good enough Narrative to the US plebes.
Yes, imo there is a possibility of the Obamedia to turn on Him in order to save the “gas prices will necessarily skyrocket” Ideology.
Of course the system (constitution, congress) is imperfect as well, standing in the way of The Progressive Messiah but He didn’t do enough to circumvent them.