|
by afew  The triumphal roll-out of media spin that was meant to get across the notion that Tony Blair would inevitably be the first president of the European Council has run into trouble. The pro-Blair noise has remained confined to the British press, and political and popular opposition to Blair's candidature has made its way, falteringly at first, on to the media's radar. Tony is no longer the "only candidate": it's clear there are others, and Mary Robinson may be emerging as a popular one. He's no longer the "inevitable winner": governments of smaller EU member states have taken a stand. There's no doubt Blair is hugely unpopular, as commentary from right and left shows, and as the success of the Stop Blair! petition (achieved with no publicity, no media clout) also shows. Over the last few days, the Blair campaign has been scraping the barrel. There were arrogant anti-European caricatures and prose from The Economist. Then despicable use of nonsensical bookmaker's odds to keep the "Blair favourite" story running. Yesterday: Berlusconi backs his old friend Blair for role as EU President - Europe, World - The Independent Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi has backed his old chum Tony Blair for President of Europe in an open letter to Il Foglio, the newspaper part-owned by his estranged wife Veronica, which is mounting a campaign in support of Mr Blair. And, last night on the Guardian's Comment Is Free: Stop hating Tony Blair | Irwin Stelzer | Comment is free | The Guardian Some people hate Tony Blair for what he did in office, most notably assisting in the unseating of Saddam Hussein. Others hate him for what he has done since being forced out of office by Gordon Brown, most notably for making what his former mentor, Neil Kinnock, called "loadsamoney". Still others hate him for what he might become – the president of the European Union, a post created by denying citizens in key European countries a voice in the process by which the Lisbon constitution – er, treaty – was adopted. All the Blair haters are wrong. Irwin Stelzer, the Hudson Institute/Murdoch voice of the Empire in London during the Blair years*, oozing contempt for the European Union even as he attempts a victimisation ploy.
The Stelzer piece went up yesterday evening and already has a full complement of anti-Blair comments.
Would we be right to consider that the Blair campaign is losing it when it uses figures symbolic of European subjection to US foreign policy interests like Berlusconi and Stelzer in the same day? Or should we be making ready for the next round?
* Note on Irwin Stelzer: Writing regularly in Murdoch's Times, Irwin Stelzer laid down the Bush/Cheney administration law to Britain and, even very directly, to the British government. There is one extremely clear example of this, from January 2001 as the new Bush administration began. It was discussed on ET in 2006 here, at which time the article in question was still in the Google cache, which it is no longer. But you can download the text from ET site files here. The whole article needs to be read, but here are some excerpts (emphasis mine):
Rumsfeld is a long-time proponent of a missile shield to protect America and any who would shelter from missile attacks from 'rogue Governments' such as North Korea, Iran and Iraq, or from a newly hostile Russia. There can be no clearer statement of US imperial policy, pre- or post-9/11, and openly threatening language, sent through the main London organ of the press magnate Blair cannot do without, Rupert Murdoch. Of course, Blair did as he was told, and today we have Stelzer telling us not to hate him... |
Menu
. Home
. About . Contact . New User Guide . FAQ . ET Editorial Guidelines . Search . Search (Google) Login
|
||
|
Blair Backers Get Shrill [UPDATE] | 52 comments (52 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Blair Backers Get Shrill [UPDATE] | 52 comments (52 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
| ||||
| ||||
