I have been trying to understand a strange transatlantic difference... beyond our common languages, of course.
Over 'there', an entrenched, deeply unpopular (it seems) incumbent administration is taking a drubbing mainly on the basis of the economy which, if many who post here are to be believed (and such links as I have seen provided bear out) has mainly been shaped by those who are set against them, from Clinton to majority Democrat voting subsequently.
Meanwhile, over 'here', an entrenched, deeply unpopular (it seems to me on the ground, but not so much in the rarified circles of our Westminster Village Useful Idiot media) incumbent administration is getting a free pass from many, especially around an economy which was in pretty good shape when they inherited it over ten years ago and they have been free and clear to play with ever since, unencumbered by many of the legislative hurdles our US cousins' systems can impose.
Both sides of the pond have 'left' and 'right' print and broadcast media, so why the discrepancy, he asked, rhetorically?
Tory activists brainwashed by the BBC - no idea who this geezer is, and he is for sure in one camp (hence the rather inevitable course of the post replies), but it was interesting on the topic of the perceptions here, even if it wandered off a bit on Mrs. Palin.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I believe in freedom of speech. But I also don't like bullies on blogs, even verbal ones, as they can drive away those with something valid to say... or offer.
Subjective is fine, but well argued and substantiated is even better. Calm and polite tops. Anything that crosses my personal line will not go up. There may be reasons given, but not guaranteed.
I'm not too keen on 'Anon' as a handle (and the content usually explains why), so if that's what you opt for it may not make it. Sorry.