Commentator editor shoots himself in the (ideological and possibly intellectual) foot

I know that certain types of professional are prone to a degree of certainty that the evidence doesn't allow,especially outside their speciality. Thus, I know medics who are always right, especially about politics or who owns what or who said what. The same is true of an educational specialist of my acquaintance who is supposed to be opening young people's minds to evaluating evidence who insists that Al Jazeera is a model of fair reporting on the Middle East.

So, when Raheem, editor-in-chief of The Commentator, insists that, in the words of the title to this piece, "Believers in the free world are backing Romney", he is seriously risking hubris. After all, this popped into my in-box on the day of the US election, long before the polls closed and while the latest polls were showing a continuing but fixed lead for Obama in the most vital of the swing states.

Before anyone out there gets too upset with me (and I know that some of you have very definite views as to who should be the next US President), this is not about the election, but about journalists thinking they know better than the US electorate. Should Romney win, Raheem and his fellows are wonderful prophets. Should Obama win,does he look foolishly. That, or the US voters are.

Further, I will argue till the cows come home that whatever else is wrong with it, the NHS is far from the worst health service in the world. Which is another hubristic comment and merely confirms where on the political spectrum The Commentator stands.

Its saving grace is that it is intensely pro-Israel.

By Brian Goldfarb.