I noticed the BBC covered the imminent announcement by Texas Governor Rick Perry that he will be running for the GOP Presidential nomination. Now, I am quite a fan of Perry (along with Palin/Bachmann) but I was surprised to hear the BBC say that his weaknesses are that 1/He is from Texas (home of the evil Bush) and       2/ had once made an alleged comment suggesting Texas might leave the Union. I would have thought the fact he worked for Al Gore back in 1988 was more of a downer. I suppose the BBC see Gore as above associated criticism, I don’t. As Obama sinks deeper and deeper in the mire, it should be fun to watch the BBC do their best to assassinate the characters of ALL the GOP candidates. It is obvious the BBC wants to see their hero re-elected and you can be certain that the bais will shine through as we run up to the 2012 elections. Just wait until Palin declares…

Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to PERRY

  1. RGH says:

    Does the BBC or Mardell  tell us this:

    “The notion everyone is talking about is ‘is he Jimmy Carter or will he be a one-term president’,” he said.
    Gary Pearce, a Democratic strategist in North Carolina, a swing state Mr Obama is likely to struggle to retain in 2012, said: “Democrats are worried. He looks weak, he doesn’t say anything that grabs you, and people are looking for some kind of magic.”

    From the Telegraph


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Like I said before, if He is defeated in 2012, it won’t be His fault.  Mardell and the rest of the BBC will treat the US public like the worst of the old German Passion Plays treated the Jews.


  2. cjhartnett says:

    He`s Carter…without the peanut farm and Billy…so even less use!
    No further questions m`lud!


  3. Cassandra King says:

    On a tidal wave of BBC love, Mr O’Bama came into office and with a super majority into the bargain. He has messed up everything he touched, without exception he has almost brought the USA to its knees.

    Jobs is my No1 focus said O’Bama when he swaggered into the whitehouse with his racist wife, proceeded to throw out a bust of our Winnie and then went about squandering the gigantic stimulus. So there is no money left and no jobs and all the moron can think of is raise taxes and borrow more.

    Not since JFK has a leftist MSM led by the BBC been so over excited and eager to pimp O’Bama as the 2nd coming, well he aint the 2nd coming but he sure as sherbet will be the 1st going come 2012.


  4. David Preiser (USA) says:

    From the linked article:

    Mr Huntsman has thus far failed to live up to the excitement his entrance into the race generated.

    What excitement?  I don’t remember any excitement, other than from Mark Mardell because he was told by his DC WaPo buddies that Huntsman had a shot.

    Also this bit of editorializing stood out:

    the candidates offered a round of boilerplate Republican calls for lower taxes and repeal of Mr Obama’s “Obamacare” healthcare reform law of 2010.

    If they don’t approve, they denigrate, and use dismissive terminology.  Ever heard a Beeboid refer to anything said by a Democrat or Labour candidate in this situation as “boilerplate”?

    Where did the BBC discuss Perry’s negatives?  I don’t see his being from Texas much of a negative these days considering that state has created more jobs than the rest of the country by a mile, and the fact that nearly all the Dem states are either bankrupt or veering towards it.  His über-Christian stuff will be a serious drawback in a national election, though.  Too many people are frightened of theocratic musings.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Sorry, DV, I meant to ask where did you hear the criticisms of Perry, in case there’s a Listen Again option?  I know you didn’t mean in the linked article.


  5. zoltankemeny says:

    I’m a pretty radical free-marketeer and I despise Perry.  I live in Texas and I like the fact that we’re one of five or six states in the union that don’t have a state income tax.  But Perry is a welfare queen through and through.  He can’t give up those huge subisidies and wealth transfer payments to corporations foreign and domestic (just like the Democrats can’t give up their wealth transfer payments to either corporations or “the poor”). 

    For all his talk of the 10th amendment and secession from our rotten federal government, he waffled on some big issues in the Legislature (which met from January to May this year).  I was involved with one which would make the touching of people’s private areas by the TSA illegal in our state.  Perry kept out of the issue until he knew he was safe to talk about it–which was after our federal government threatened us with a no-fly zone.

    Overall, Perry is weak.  He will not stand by his principles, especially when the possibly of paying off his buddies donors with taxpayer money is dangled in his face (he is very similar to Obama and Bush on this point).  There is another Texan who should be president:  Ron Paul.  Many of us in the “liberty movement” here in Austin, Texas–the capitol–consider him the be one of the few politicians who will help return our country to sound money, a policy of defense, end the ruinous and unconstitutional drug war, and generally be the decent person he has been for the last 30 years.

    It might do you well to learn that their are two TEA party movements in the U.S.  One was started by Paul, the other by Dick Armey (great name, he’s a Republican party strategist).  Armey’s movement is populated by creatures like Bachmann, Paul Ryan and others who can spout words like Reagan but still support massive spending measures that are bankrupting our country.  (I’ve given up hope on any Democrat to stop spending.)


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      You mean Tea Party “organizations”, not movements.  Both Paul and Armey jumped on the bandwagon, although Paul’s followers jumped on a lot earlier.  There are loads of Tea Party organizations, large and small, all over the place, none of which are controlled by Paul or Armey.

      I long for the days of Ross Perot, myself.


      • zoltankemeny says:

        The difference isn’t even pedantic to be pointed out by you but whatever–I was referring to the PACs not the state, county and city orgs.  Paul didn’t jump on the bandwagon considering he was the first politician even making observations that (some) TEA party “members” and “organizations” started making afterward; sadly most of the TEA party groups are still in favor of ruinous war and increased military spending.  I also didn’t say either controlled these organizations, Paul started one, Armey another and other politicians populate them.  Reading comprehension, dude.  It would be nice to have a candidate who is against war AND taxes like Perot was–oh wait, there is one: Ron Paul.  Not Rick Perry, not Michelle Bachmann, not Mitt Romney and all the other establishment goons.


        • David Preiser (USA) says:

          Considering the connotations of “movement” versus “organization”, especially the way the media has been covering it and the use of terminology in common parlance, it’s more than merely splitting pedantic hairs.   That’s why I felt it was important to point out to those reading (not to you, obviously) that nobody controls the movement.  Terms make a difference in pereception.  Especially considering the way the BBC initially (when they finally got around to it, that is) reported about the Tea Party movement being obviously controlled by a national guiding hand and that it was never a true grass roots movement.

          I actually stood (by chance, it’s not like everyone was wearing a badge or anything) with a few Ron Paul supporters at the second Tea Party event in NYC in 2009 (occasional chants of “End the Fed”), so I know they were interested in the movement way before most of the pols caught on, and before Paul started his group.  Lots of people booed Gingrich when he showed up, which told me there was hope after all.


  6. Roy Stirred-Oyster says:

    Whoever gets the nomination, the first thing the beeb will want to know is their views on the most important matters for London-Liberals:

    1. Homosexuality
    2. Gun control
    3. Abortion


  7. John C says:

    Now it begins, endless, tedious, biased BBC coverage of the US presidential elections. Can they not just leave it and tell us who they eventually elect, like they do when covering the elections in India, Brazil, Nigeria, Poland, Argentina, Canada, South Africa, Malaysia, Singapore, Japan, Kenya, Hungary, Russia, Mongolia, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, etc. etc.
    Just do one programme explaining again how the primaries and electoral college works, and why the president is not elected by the direct share of the popular vote (many people still don’t understand that), then let’s hear no more about this foreign election until it’s over. Save a few million on BBC expenses for flocks of reporters and analysts too.