Dinesh D'Souza is the name but what his nature is appears to be a matter of contention. I wrote a post based on one of his articles for Fox News. I rather liked his style because he frequently picks up a big stick, or a sharp impliment and leaves poor Barry Obama bleeding and bruised! Yes, I know, he looks a bit like an Indian Rowan Atkinson but he is, in fact, the very latest media rotweiller to emerge from the American Right.
Apparently, he has just released a film called "Obama's America: 2016" which, I gather, delves deeply into Obama's murky background, an area hitherto considered by virtue of a 'gentleman's agreement' off limits to the supine, corrupt, American media. Also in the film, D'Souza takes Obama's Marxism as real and paints a picture of the USA after another four years of rule by his 'Central Committee'. A fairly arcane subject, one would have thought, but it has enjoyed an unexpected success in cinemas across the USA. If it helps boot Obama out then it can't be all bad!
However, some people think it is very bad indeed. Both Jack Cashill at The American Thinker and Gene Healy at The Washington Examiner express some severe doubts concerning Mr. D'Souza's ability and judgment. Both are impeccable conservatives not averse to giving President Obama a slap when it is deserved but it is Mr. Healy who dubs D'Souza "the Right's Michael Moore", a damning indictment. You may read both of their opinions and then draw your own conclusion. However, I am glad that there are watchful eyes on the American Right prepared to undertake critical assessments of their own kind in the media. It is precisely that lack of self-criticism which has allowed the vast bulk of the so-called 'liberal' media to slide en masse into the sewage of intellectual corruption in which they now wallow.
All this screaming and raving and half-baked debating seems a p..s-poor way to determine who runs a great nation. But to be honest I cannot think of a better, or at least a more trustworthy or less corruptible way. So loathsome slanging match it must be - the modern trial-by-combat. The important thing is the overall system rather than the man (I hope).
Still, it's a large country far away, about which we know rather little.
OT and BTW, I read Full Circle, a very good roundup and well worth £2.20 on Amazon, thanks for the steer.
Posted by: rogerh | Friday, 05 October 2012 at 09:33
Yes, Roger, I think given the nature of their presidential democracy debates between the principals is a good idea. In the wear and tear you begin to have a rough sense of the protagonists concerned.
Delighted that you enjoyed Full Circle. The man would have made a first class teacher although I doubt any examination board would have been able to frame a suitable exam for his wide-ranging knowledge.
Posted by: David Duff | Friday, 05 October 2012 at 13:27