Britons Say Enoch Powell Was Right

Britons Say Enoch Powell Was Right

A quote from the BBC, 17 April 2008

Almost two-thirds of people in Britain fear race relations are so poor tensions are likely to spill over into violence, a BBC poll has suggested. Of the 1,000 people asked, 60% said the UK had too many immigrants and half wanted foreigners encouraged to leave. […] Equality and Human Rights Commission head Trevor Phillips said the findings were “alarming”. […]

The survey was commissioned to mark the 40th anniversary of Enoch Powell’s infamous “rivers of blood” speech, in which he described the indigenous population’s “sense of alarm and resentment” over immigration. […] BBC home editor Mark Easton says Powell’s words, spoken to a small gathering in Birmingham’s Midland hotel, still echo down the decades. […]

Asked if they thought immigration meant their local area didn’t feel like Britain any more, a quarter of the sample agreed – double the amount who felt this three years ago. Six out of 10 said immigration had made parts of Britain feel like a foreign country. […]

[O]ur correspondent says immigration is now back on the political agenda. He says: “One reason politicians can debate it again, perhaps, is that the latest wave of immigration is different. The million Eastern Europeans who’ve come to the UK in the last three or four years are not looking to settle for good. Their motives are economic. And perhaps most importantly they are white. Forty years after Enoch Powell, the issues of race and immigration have been separated once more.”
More on this topic:

Rivers of Blood and the Mentality of 68, 16 April 2008

It Is Worse than Enoch Powell Predicted, 16 April 2008

Rivers of Blood Forty Years On
, 17 April 2008


Islam’s Reality – Islam’s Biggest Contribution To Humanity: Insults, Slavery, Opression, And Oceans of Blood

Ohio Teacher Refuses to Remove Bible From Students’ View, and other attacks on Christianity

Hard numbers: Illegal alien drunk drivers in North Carolina

Prospect of Iran nukes frightens Saudi royals — They need to examine thier role in support of terrorists

War Blog

Oprah Denies Christ

‘Obama’s Secret Weapon; the Media’

‘Obama’s Secret Weapon; the Media’

Rick Moran
This article in Politico is extraordinary. Not for the information it gives about the fact that the press is in the tank for Obama. But rather because the reporters John Harris and Jim Vandehei are so up front and candid about it.

For instance, the left’s indignation about the debate the other night is, as the reporters point out, a consequence of no hard questions ever coming Obama’s way by other journalists:

In fact, the balance of political questions (15) to policy questions (13) was more substantive than other debates this year that prompted no deluge of protests.

The difference is that this time there were more hard questions for Obama than for Clinton. Moreover, those questions about Jeremiah Wright, about Obama’s association with 1960s radical William Ayers, about apparent contradictions between his past and present views on proven wedge issues like gun control, were entirely in-bounds. If anything, they were overdue for a front-runner and likely nominee.

If Obama was covered like Clinton is, one feels certain the media focus would not have been on the questions, but on a candidate performance that at times seemed tinny, impatient and uncertain.

The difference seems clear: Many journalists are not merely observers but participants in the Obama phenomenon.

Both journalists admit that they themselves are not immune:

(Harris only here: As one who has assigned journalists to cover Obama at both Politico and The Washington Post, I have witnessed the phenomenon several times. Some reporters come back and need to go through detox, to cure their swooning over Obama’s political skill. Even VandeHei seemed to have been bitten by the bug after the Iowa caucus.)

(VandeHei only here: There is no doubt reporters are smitten with Obama’s speeches and promises to change politics. I find his speeches, when he’s on, pretty electric myself. It certainly helps his cause that reporters also seem very tired of the Clintons and their paint-by-polls approach to governing.)

These are remarkably candid admissions. It shows that once the general election begins, the press is going to have to make a choice between being professional or being a cheerleader.  

Reporters are people too and are subject to their own biases and beliefs. But one would think that when they reach the level in their field where they are covering the race for president of United States that they would have the independence of mind to at the very least not fall in love with one candidate or another.

In Obama’s case, that appears to be too much to ask.