The Latté Party



The Tea Party, like UKIP, is always a source of mocking outraged humour on the BBC, always guaranteed to raise a snigger from presenter or guest.

A comparable negative and insulting characterization of similar groups on the left is completely absent from the BBC…Occupy or the Socialist Worker’s Party or  UK Uncut (well…they’re pretty much the same group in reality) get an unwarranted amount of respect and regard for their opinions…the late Paul Mason an ardent fan of Occupy.

Note a similar sweeping under the carpet of Ralph Miliband’s Marxism  last week despite Unite’s dinosaur Union Baron, Len McCluskey, adopting it as his manifesto for a Brave New World as he strives to reshape the Labour Party to suit his own political vision….back to the future.


Mark Mardell, himself no slouch at denigrating the Tea Party, proves that he could handle a job at the Daily Mail with his latest bit of rabble rousing, crowd pleasing, tabloidesque slam dunk of the Tea Party once again:

The Republicans have been accused of having Tea Party tantrums, they’ve been compared to people who want to burn the house down, suicide bombers, hostage takers and teenage drivers repeatedly taking a blind curve in the rain.

All these images of blackmail and mayhem come about because their strategy has brought the government to the brink of shutdown. What may happen at midnight on Monday is short of Armageddon, but it is not pretty.


Now the normal formula is to raise the hyperbole, get people’s interest and then say…well, you know that’s what people say…but the reality….

But Mardell doesn’t bother with that, he puts the boot in, and keeps putting it in….he leaves you with the idea that the Republicans are setting out to destroy America for no good reason at all….‘It is an argument between those who want to rush to the barricades and go down in a blaze of glory, heroes of the revolution to like-minded Tea Party types, and those who think it is a pointless charge but don’t want to be labelled traitors and cowards.’

Here the lead-in link to a report on the close down in the US is titled ‘Suicide Caucus’… the report it continues to cast around the slurs:

The rebellious faction hails from solidly conservative, mostly rural areas across the country. They’ve been called the “weird caucus” by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and the “suicide caucus” by Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, in reference to a disregard for their party’s survival. They sometimes refer to themselves as “wacko birds“, adopting as their own the derisive label given to them by Republican Senator John McCain



No negotiation…the Republicans are being unreasonably obstinate….

The thing that’s different about these Republicans is their unwillingness to bargain,” says Vanderbilt University public policy professor Bruce Oppenheimer.

“I’m not sure if it’s because they lack government experience or they’ve made such strong promises to their constituencies, but they’ve put their feet in cement and can’t or won’t move.”


I wonder if Oppenheimer thinks the same about Obama?…

Mr Obama is refusing to negotiate with the Republicans over the budget issues until they pass a temporary bill to reopen the government.


What’s curious about the BBC coverage is that it seems more intent on throwing around insults, about the Republicans of course, with no similar critical and negative appraisals and brickbats for the Democrats.


A Today programme piece  last week on the shutdown took the view that the Republicans were at fault, there was no deep reflection on the Republican’s reasons given for their ‘stubborn’ refusal to obey Obama…whilst Obama had two speeches aired in the same report, naturally chosen to make him look statesmanlike and responsible, the Republicans intransigent and unreasonable.

However things aren’t quite so simple.  The Republicans have very good reaon to want to delay and spend time examining ‘Obamacare’….apart from the massive expense the legislation was steamrollered through the Houses:

From Cranmer….

US budget ‘shutdown’ – what the pro-Obama BBC won’t explain 

‘….legislation was forced through in the most partisan manner: it received not one single Republican vote. For such a significant cultural and economic change, this is unique. Also unique is the remarkable fact that the Bill was large, complex, and so timetabled that it was physically impossible for any of the legislators to have read it within the time available, and the vast majority still have not. In the current debate, Senator Cruz was able to rebuke Senate Democrat Leader Harry Reid by pointing out that he, unlike Reid, had read it. It is doubtful that many in the UK appreciate this extraordinary breach of duty by the proponents of Obamacare. The then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi delivered the breathtaking response when challenged: “We have to pass this Bill so you can know what’s in it.”

Can you imagine the response of the BBC if Iain Duncan Smith had brought his Welfare Reform Bill to Parliament at 24-hours notice and declared such a thing?’


It seems that many of the American peple didn’t know what they had been signed up for…..many liking the idea until reality hits, and the envelop drops through the letterbox:

“Of course, I want people to have health care,” Vinson said. “I just didn’t realize I would be the one who was going to pay for it personally.”

Cindy Vinson and Tom Waschura are big believers in the Affordable Care Act. They vote independent and are proud to say they helped elect and re-elect President Barack Obama.

Yet, like many other Bay Area residents who pay for their own medical insurance, they were floored last week when they opened their bills: Their policies were being replaced with pricier plans that conform to all the requirements of the new health care law.

Vinson, of San Jose, will pay $1,800 more a year for an individual policy, while Waschura, of Portola Valley, will cough up almost $10,000 more for insurance for his family of four.



Of course it is suggested that many millions will also benefit…..but if the legislation hasn’t been properly scrutinised how can they really know?

This morning on R4 we had a programme which commented on Government and the big projects it likes to put into action in the modern era…..almost inevitably failing….and yet no such caution from the BBC over ‘Obamacare’, one of the biggest such projects probably ever launched by any government.


For the BBC, if you’re a white Republican from Arkansas ‘it’s all just shipping’, you’re history,  Obamacare’s here to stay and the Hispanics flooding over the border will keep you Whiteboys out of office for ever.











Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to The Latté Party

  1. Scrappydoo says:

    It is obvious from Obama’s recent TV appearances and the shutting down of tourist attractions using troops and barriers to turn away visitors (all costing far more than the normal staffing arrangements) that he is milking the situation. But you won’t hear this from the BBC.


  2. DJ says:

    Ah yes: ‘rural’ – now there’s a classic BBC code word, in Britain as well as the US, meant to sum up inbred bumpkins who don’t need no book learnin’.

    Meanwhile, the Messiah trying to Barrycade parking lots, war memorials and the ocean itself is not deranged in any way and makes perfect sense. I guess the BBC is right, and there’s nothing funny about liberalism


  3. Guest Who says:

    ‘What’s curious about the BBC coverage is that it seems more intent on throwing around insults’

    Astoundingly uncurious, I’d venture to suggest.
    Looking at anything it goes near, this seems pretty much SOP now.


  4. Adi says:

    Obamacare website launch just days ago was a total nightmare and right now they pulled the plug, hoping maybe it will work at some point.

    But the ting is, Obamacare is a 3,000 pages law accompanied by 7ft tall in paper regulations. No software built around those rules and exemptions (who most likely contradict each other) will ever work.

    The problem with Obamacare is Obamacare.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      The problem here is poorly designed, untested software. Even the big ObamaCare supporting admin expert the WaPo talked to knows it’s a mess. None of this is a problem, of course. We’re all meant to understand that these things take time, not even Netflix got it 100% right on the first day, you know.

      The bar is set so low for the President on everything that nothing can ever be declared a problem. The WaPo is where the BBC gets its intellectual leadership on these major US issues (in much the same way college students and less affluent coastal Leftoids get theirs from St. Jon Stewart), so if they don’t see anything to worry about, the BBC can’t.

      And anyway, only racists object to ObamaCare.


      • Adi says:

        Ah yes, it is the code and once it is fixed Obamacare will go swimmingly, sure thing as of next week gazillions will enroll. Must be a racist for not seeing this, heh.


        • F*** the Beeb says:

          American healthcare needs reform. I’m not convinced however that Obama is the man to reform it.


          • David Preiser (USA) says:

            Contrary to BBC reporting, no one has ever said it doesn’t need reforming. The issue is the hows and wheres. The thing is, even if the website works perfectly in the end, ObamaCare itself will still be a disaster and won’t do what the BBC promised it would.

            Alternatively, the silence could be due to the fact that they probably know the BBC is the last organization to be throwing stones about @#$%ed up technological projects.


  5. Amounderness Lad says:

    “We have to pass this Bill so you can know what’s in it.” The BBC will definitely not say one word about that kind of lunacy from the Democrats.
    “You have to vote for it before you can know what we are demanding you must vote for.” is typical Eurocrat style doublespeak for knowing full well that once you find out what you are voting for there’s not a cat in hell’s chance you’d be stupid enough to agree to it.
    It goes with the whole BBC philosophy, “Just accept that we are right, so go away, shut up and don’t dare question us.”


    • F*** the Beeb says:

      And if you don’t vote for it, you’ll be forced to vote again until you get it right. I’m sure there was a case like this centuries ago where a judge wouldn’t let a jury leave because they kept finding the defendant not guilty and the judge wanted him executed. We laugh at this obvious abuse of power yet accept it from the EU.


      • Stewart says:

        I think this is the case you mean

        Penn was educated at Chigwell School, Essex where he had his earliest religious experience. Thereafter, young Penn’s religious views effectively exiled him from English society — he was sent down (expelled) from Christ Church, Oxford for being a Quaker, and was arrested several times. Among the most famous of these was the trial following his arrest with William Meade for preaching before a Quaker gathering. Penn pleaded for his right to see a copy of the charges laid against him and the laws he had supposedly broken, but the judge, the Lord Mayor of London, refused — even though this right was guaranteed by the law. Despite heavy pressure from the Lord Mayor to convict the men, the jury returned a verdict of “not guilty”. The Lord Mayor then not only had Penn sent to jail again (on a charge of contempt of court), but also the full jury. The members of the jury, fighting their case from prison, managed to win the right for all English juries to be free from the control of judges

        It was a famous victory for freedom of conscience . One the BBC seem determined to reverse


  6. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Government shutdown? What government shutdown? The ObamaCare website has been mostly running for the last few days. When it was shut down over the weekend for costly repairs, the federal government paid hand over fist to get it up and running again by Monday. It’s going down again because it’s not fixed yet, and the federal government will still pay for more overtime and extra hands. Why? Because it’s ObamaCare, the single most important piece of legislation ever passed in the history of humankind. Why? Because it was the first and signature legislation for The Obamessiah. It’s basically the only serious thing He can claim as an achievement. If it doesn’t work, His entire reign will be tarnished.

    So Duchess Sebelius has tweeted her followers about some lovely young women who are “enrolling” in the exchanges. Only it turns out that they haven’t actually signed up and paid for any insurance. They’re just looking. Even the Administration’s poster children haven’t gotten their health insurance through ObamaCare yet. But since that’s all they have, the Administration flogs their pictures of these cliché-ridden archetypes, accompanied by flowery prose laden with marketing and media buzzwords.

    The system is a disaster not because I object to ObamaCare in principle, but because they only started putting together this continent-sized apparatus about eighteen months ago, and only started testing it in August. No, really. Madness and incompetence.

    Are the computers racist now? Nobody can blame Republican intransigence for the failure of the Administration to hand out contracts and get the ball rolling within six months of the legislation being signed. Nobody can blame racism or hyper-partisan polarization for the Administration’s failure to put sound management into place. At best, defenders of the indefensible can blame evil Republicans for forcing their States to opt out of the exchanges, putting a greater burden on the federal government, although it’s hard to see how much that effects a database system. Never mind that even Democrat-run States have either opted out or have placed a significant part of their own burden on the federal government. Is Illinois run by the Tea Party now?

    In short, this is a cluster@#$% on another level for ObamaCare. It’s not the job-killing, small business-squeezing, premium-increasing cluster@#$% that I’ve been warning about for two years: it’s another facet of the problem. Yet the BBC remains resolutely silent.

    I’m not surprised, because it must surely be humiliating for many of them who had personal emotions invested in ObamaCare’s passage and success back in 2010. Remember how much effort the BBC put into their propaganda and celebration coverage? They spent a huge amount of effort trying to cover the process of passing the law and relating the White House talking points to you, almost as if it was the BBC’s job to promote the domestic policy of the leader of a foreign country.

    And here’s the BBC promoting it anew. This isn’t journalism: it’s partisan promotion.

    Plus there’s this disingenuous revamping of an old Q&A piece, where the BBC claims on behalf of the White House that ObamaCare’s aim is simple: To extend health insurance coverage to some of the estimated 15% of the US population who lack it.”

    Of course, its aim is very much more than that: the President and His crew really want to transform the entire health care system away from private insurance and into something like the NHS. That’s always been their real goal, and ObamaCare is meant to be the first step which breaks the insurance game, thus forcing more government takeover. If one supports that, then it’s a wonderful thing. That’s why the BBC has always covered it so positively, so enthusiastically: the BBC journalists themselves are in favor of the idea, and are by and large supporters of the President (doubters may read the In Their Own Tweets page for starters).


    • DB says:

      Just asked you about that Science Hour headline in the open thread. Should’ve known you’d be on it.

      Blaming the shutdown entirely on Republicans, pretending Obamacare is free for all and ignoring the disastrous roll-out – this is the work of propagandists not objective journalists.


      • David Preiser (USA) says:

        It’s amazing (not) how the same perspective on all these issues manifests itself across the spectrum of BBC output. It makes one wonder sometimes why they insist they need multitudes of Beeboids to fly out to the US or wherever to cover the same story for their individual programmes/channels.


  7. DB says:

    BBC US journo Regan Morris:

    “We have to defend Obamacare before we know what’s in it.”


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      But we object only because we don’t understand it and haven’t read it through properly, right? Nobody could possibly object to the elements we do know about without appreciating all its merits, I’m sure. Nobody could possibly say it won’t work without understand every nuance and side regulation, no, sir.


  8. London Calling says:

    BBC appears to be under the impression Obama is trying to introduce “NHS universal health care” on the population.

    Brought up under the NHS they don’t understand Health Insurance, which in a free market arrives at “risk segmentation” If you are 60 years old and single you do not need maternity service costs in your insurance premium. For the same reason Motor Insurance costs teenagers a lot – because they are the ones doing most of the crashing.

    Obamacare has mandated policy coverage requirements – like the good Socialist Obama is – so the sixty year old’s policy must include maternity and paediatric cover, and has to be paid for by him. It’s good old Socialist redistribution, where the free market has already arrived at the workable solution for homogenous risk pools .

    People used to paying for one thing are now being told they must buy something they don’t want or need. You would have to be a blinkered BBC journalist not to understand Obamacare is not an American solution to paying for healthcare, it is a North Korean one.


  9. uncle bup says: