The best opinion writing from Sunday’s papers, all in one place. Brought to you by Caroline Crampton.
William Rees-Mogg in The Mail on Sunday looked at the historic television debate between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon in 1960, and asks whether Conservative Party leader David Cameron, in his performance in the UK’s first televised election debate, can find the crucial turning point for his campaign in the way that Kennedy did. However, it may not be so simple: Rees-Moggs believes that “each of the three candidates in this election has an image problem.”
The leader in The Sunday Times looked at Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s performance at the Chilcott Inquiry on Friday, and concluded that while Brown himself may feel satisfied with the compromise he achieved in his testimony, in fact he highlighted his own role in problematic military funding while he was Chancellor. According to a YouGov poll released today, “only 16 percent think he has been a good war leader, although expectations of Mr Cameron are scarcely any higher.”
Janet Daley in The Sunday Telegraph mourned the death of Michael Foot and looked for “a return to real political disputation rather than playground insult, real beliefs rather than focus-group-tested formulae, real convictions rather than platitudinous slogans.” She looked at the fervour of the American Tea Party movement, and wonders why Britain has lost such a grass roots passion for politics.
Will Hutton in The Observer looked at the difficulties faced by Baroness Ashton, the EU’s new chief of foreign policy. She was appointed “by default” after other candidates withdrew, and approved by heads of state in spite of her limited experience because “they aimed to manipulate an innocent.” But, in spite of the bullying and difficulties, Hutton feels that she has a “unique chance to hold Europe together.”
Frank Rich in The New York Times took another look at what the fate of healthcare reform will mean for President Barack Obama’s presidency. He believes that the President’s “finest hour” came on Wendesday at his rally, but that “we face the alarming prospect that his presidency could be toast if he doesn’t make good on a year’s worth of false starts.”
Andrew Alexander in The Washington Post wrote an excellent round-up of the controversy surrounding Rahm Emmanuel this week. He discussed The Post‘s use of anonymous quotes and anecdotal accounts of Emmanuel’s activities, and concluded that while undeniably newsworthy, that kind of reporting can damage the credibility of both the paper and the figure in question.
President Obama meets with White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel. Photo credit: White house, Pete Souza
Add new comment
The Periscope Post reserves the right to delete inappropriate or abusive comments; profanity will not be tolerated. Remember, commenting is a privilege, not a right.