Fascinating civil war broke out at Hot Air over a Jazz Shaw post taking House Speaker John Boehner to task for suggesting the November election will really be a referendum on President Obama rather than an endorsement (or otherwise) of Mitt Romney.

Aside from Romney’s “friends, relatives and fellow Mormons,” Boehner said, most people will be motivated to vote for him in opposition to Obama.
The Ohio Republican made the remarks when an unidentified woman asked during a question-and-answer session: “Can you make me love Mitt Romney?”
“No,” Boehner said. “Listen, we’re just politicians. I wasn’t elected to play God. The American people probably aren’t going to fall in love with Mitt Romney. I’ll tell you this: 95 percent of the people that show up to vote in November are going to show up in that voting booth, and they are going to vote for or against Barack Obama.

Opinon seemed evenly divided over whether Boehner was to be congratulated on his honesty or condemned for rocking the GOP boat. But soon one or two posters were declaring that Romney was not only the best thing since sliced bread but would also become Reagan 2 once he got to the White House.

Funny thing is, until the last registration, although there were partisan voices for Palin, Cain, Santorum, Perry etc the general view appeared to be that, far from being another Reagan, Romney was McCain 2 – a stodgy, uninspiring choice who could only be voted for with a peg affixed to one’s nose.

Strangely enough, however,since the most recent registration voices have appeared ascribing Zeus like qualities to a man previously despised for his Romneycare past, his flip flopping on key issues and his failure to stand for re-election as governor of Massachusetts……

But the post of the day came from someone who felt that Boehner had been hoist with his own petard and had no sympathy for his oddly timed whinge

Yeah, John, I wanted to vote FOR someone, someone I agreed with on 90% of the issues, someone I trust to at least fight for the reforms this country needs, someone to make me believe in the promise of America again. Sadly she decided not to run because she knew the deck was stacked against her because you and your ilk never would have her back and would work against her every step of the way. So I am left with Mittoast. And yes, John, I will be among the 95% that is going to be a good little solider, eat my gruel and vote against Obamao. But my vote won’t be FOR something. So John, don’t count on getting either my money or time. Those go for the things I am FOR.

Ouch….I hope that hurt…..

David Davies MP at The Commentator tries to explain it in words so simple that even Krugman, Obama, Hollande and the BBC/Guardianistas might be able to understand…

The ‘plan for growth’ is actually a euphemism for borrowing more money than we already are. Sound familiar?

The theory goes that the government borrows money to spend on a big project, like building a motorway. This creates lots of jobs in construction, and afterwards even more jobs are created.

We spend money to make money.

This sounds too good to be true because it is.

‘Growth plans’ have to generate enough money to pay back the sum borrowed, plus interest.

The government is already spending around £45 billion a year on interest payments alone – this is more than the defence budget.

This is actually a low figure, because those lending to us have confidence that we will pay the money back.

Countries that want to carry on spending money they don’t have (like Greece) can no longer borrow money easily and therefore need to be bailed out.

We don’t want to go there.

So, in order to ensure that banks and other countries retain their confidence in the UK’s willingness to sort out its deficit, this means sticking to the plan to spend what we earn.

I think we have learnt enough from the past decade to understand that a ‘growth plan’ is a thinly veiled call for ‘increased spending.’

Of course there is always the money tree……

The BBC, acting in its capacity of being the UK extension of Barack Obama’s “Palace Guard” (aka the US mainstream media) led on the website with an item headed

Romney and Republicans raise $100m in June

Under the headline the text confirmed that Mitt Romney, the likely Republican candidate in this coming November’s Presidential election, had raised more money than Obama. At first glance one could have sensed from this the possibility of a Damascene conversion at Beeb HQ…..that they might have actually decided to report a US election in a fair and balanced way by shedding the liberal/left blinkers that for over half a century have coloured their reporting.

But, true to form, as one’s eyes travelled down the page, it became clear that they were performing to the script posted out from the New York Times, Washington Post and the TV alphabets. The Obama campaign is firing all its guns on Romney’s wealth to characterise him as a gold plated fat cat who knows nothing about the everyday problems of ordinary people in a struggling economy – and the reason for harping on the success of the Romney/GOP fundraising was to associate the Republican Party with this fat cat image…

Look, folks, it’s Obama and the people v Romney and the fat cats – and the fat cats hope to buy the election…

Moreover, to darken the image even further, the BBC references a recent Vanity Fair article

And there were negative headlines this week over a Vanity Fair investigation reporting that much of Mr Romney’s personal fortune was hidden in a network of opaque offshore investment havens.

Yes, Vanity Fair, (the one that was so sympathetic to the Occupy “movement”)…..did a full scale investigation into Romney’s wealth (probably using the fifty fact checkers that AP sent to Alaska after Palin’s VP GOP nomination in 2008)…..yet somehow has never managed to send anybody to Chicago to find out more about Obama’s relationship with Tony Rezko, a key figure in his political transfiguration who was later convicted of money laundering and bribery.

But then, since VF is clearly the house magazine of the glitterati, the BBC didn’t spend too much time agonising upon the mixed messages being sent out by Obama’s hobnobbing with the Hollywood elite….

As for the tear stained pleas from Obama and his surrogates about being outspent – smoke and mirrors, anyone?

The only catch is that the actual spending by super PACs so far this year tells a quite different story. The truth is that the super PAC founded by top Obama staffers and its aligned “independent” groups are outspending groups that oppose the president by roughly two to one.

….and behind those pro Obama super PACs are some very shady figures….

But hey, whenever did an honest in depth probe of any liberal/left political structure figure particularly high on the BBC agenda? As for the piece itself just look at the subtle hints offered by the selection of photos……Romney holidaying on an expensive rich man’s toy while Obama is out there talking to horny handed sons of toil….

….and not a single mention of golf….

cross posted at Biased BBC

We did it!

We got West Sussex County Council to abandon their plans to remove the yellow lines and turn Street Hill into a public car park again – and we did it the old fashioned way….instead of sitting on our backsides muttering about it we actually worked together to show WSCC that the real local residents most affected by the dangers of heavy parking on Street Hill wanted the lines retained.

I just wondered who it was locally who wanted the lines removed – were they people who lived along our road of 53 houses? So I composed and printed off a brief flyer and delivered one to every house. It was raining, some houses had feisty dogs who appeared only too willing to hurl themselves at a hand as it pushed a leaflet through the letterbox and almost every house had a letterbox in a different position.

The flyer listed the reasons why I supported the retention of the yellow lines and my e mail address should they wish to comment. Then I went home for a sandwich and waited, wondering if I was just another retired old fart with nothing better to do than get worked up about parked cars.

The rest of the day passed by without any response so I was preparing to shrug my shoulders and admit defeat. Then in the evening my blackberry started pinging as people replied…”totally support”…”thank you for doing this”….”have already contacted WSCC”…….I had a result!

Within two days I had e mails of support from a third of the houses I had canvassed….

I must add that we are a very private, suburban road. We know our immediate neighbours very well, a few others are familiar by sight but about 80% are completely unknown to us. I was swapping e mails with people who I wouldn’t recognise! We came to the conclusion that we needed to reach the 60% who had not replied in order to get a sense of local feeling – otherwise we might fall into the trap of being a vocal minority claiming a false mandate….not uncommon in the UK or the USA, I fear.

So we drew up a petition and a team called on every house to invite signatures.

The response was overwhelming. Every house visited was not only keen to sign but happy to give voice to their own frustrations over WSCC’s intentions. Eventually we had signatures from 51 out of 53 households – and the two who did not sign were on holiday and would not return until after the deadline for responses had passed. But neighbours assured me that both household would have supported us.

I scanned the completed petition and sent one copy to the WSCC official who was implementing the proposal and another to the elected member who was chairing the relevant committee. Then we waited for the next step, a public meeting where the WSCC would report their own conclusions and take comments.

At the start of the meeting it was clear that the news was good. 99% of the public response (which almost entirely came from our road) was for retaining the yellow lines. It was also clear that the county engineer agreed with our view that parking along that hill would be dangerous at any time. So the proposal was to keep the lines as they were.

2.4 The majority of the objections are with regards to a revocation of the restrictions that formed part of the original proposals.
2.5 Road markings installed as part of the original proposals have been in place for approximately four months. During this time WSCC officers have not received any complaints from members of the public with regards to either not being able to park along Street Hill or with regards to displacement of parking into other roads on the network.

Towards the end of their report, in the dry, unemotional officialise that must always be the signature style of such pronouncements could nevertheless be found the very essence of representative democracy, the leitmotif of 1000 years of law and custom that developed into government by consent rather than diktat.

6.2 If the proposals are implemented some members of the public may not believe West Sussex County Council is acting in their best interests.

At the meeting one or two voices from different parts of our town claimed that they were speaking on behalf of others when they complained about the parking restrictions. But they could provide no hard evidence to back up their claims. Vague references to “chatting to others” was just not good enough when I could honestly say, as I did, that, on this topic, I was truly representing the views of my neighbours.

Strange to say, I felt highly privileged to convey that message and just briefly felt a bond with all those other people, often nameless, who have spoken up for their fellows in years gone by in Britain and North America.

Or am I over egging the pudding?

The big hits of 1963….

Difficult to believe that all these came out almost half a century ago (when I had just started out as a teacher) but each of them still gives me a buzz today, not just as a stroll down memory lane but because they are also still damn good songs.

The Exciters were one hit wonders but what a hit! I defy anyone not to move on this one….

The Drifters, of course , were far from one hit wonders with a whole stream of great songs throughout the 60s. They cornered the market in slightly slower paced, almost wistful numbers…..songs to sing after you had come home from partying with the Exciters…

Roy Orbison was unique – a great songwriter and that soaring falsetto. He wrote about heartache and sad times, reflective numbers that mirrored the ups and downs of life..with always just a touch of angst…

But 1963 was also the year the Beach Boys burst onto the scene, making me wish I could leave my South London suburb and hit the beaches in California and impress those bikini clad golden tanned girls as I efforlessly rode the waves…in my imagination…

Then Ray Charles came out with this self mocking anthem celebrating the inevitable outcome of spending all that money on surfing gear and ending up broke…

But then just one look at the Ronettes with their big hair, heavy eyeliner and those swinging hips in tight dresses and you were ready to spend all the money you didn’t have just to catch their eye…even though you knew your mother wouldn’t approve…..

Happy days when great music helped to spin our dreams in those brief moments away from the real world of school, college or work…..and they still fire the imagination of this senior citizen…..