Britain Needs It's Own Sarah Palin

If you ever wish to hear the dulcet tones of a snort of derision, the best way to do so is to wander into a middle class left-wing dinner party, or a trendy university halls of residence (preferably one where there are pictures of Che Guevara on the wall, and all the boys look like girls, while the girls look like boys) and say two words – “Sarah Palin.”

The resultant snorts of haughty condescension will be loud enough to shatter windows and will result in severe sinus trauma for many of the occupants. For what “we all know” about Sarah Palin is very clear, especially to the left. Sarah Palin is a moron, a stupid imbecile who represents everything that is wrong with America; she is a hard-right nut job who makes gaffe after gaffe, and the only people who support her are gun toting red necks who hate gays and evolution. It is widely accepted that she cost the Republicans the 2008 election, and if she receives the nomination for 2012, she will certainly hand the election to Obama instead. Right?

Wrong! In fact, everything in the above paragraph is wrong. I could go through everything that is wrong with the paragraph, but it would take more space than this article allows. I could point out that most “gaffes” that Palin is known for are usually either not gaffes (but instead opinions with which the Guardian and the New York Times disagrees) or were not said by her at all – such as the famous “I can see Russia from my house” gaffe, which was actually spoken by Tina Fey. I could say that she is only hard-right if you class someone who believes in free market economics as “hard-right” or point to her consistently high poll numbers as governor of Alaska (where her approval rates reached the 90%+ mark), and the wide success of both her TV show and two books.

Yet instead of going through these arguments, I instead want to point to her biggest strength – the venom with which the left hate her. For as a Palin fan myself (although I think there are better candidates for 2012) it is obvious that I am going to claim that she isn’t a stupid, illiterate moron who has hit a good patch. But the left also unwittingly agree with this assessment by their hatred and obsession for her.

For when I hear Sarah Palin mentioned by various left-wing friends, they spit out her name with the same revulsion and disgust that most people say “aggressive yeast infection.” Furthermore, it seems that it is the left-wing media that want to report on her the most. Streams of journalists and camera crews have been following Palin’s tour bus, while at the same time tutting at how she is getting above her station. However, what is really interesting is the way in which the media has reacted to the release of her emails, with the New York Times and the Guardian both asking their readers to help them scour through the emails for dirt or possibility of scandal.

Why anyone would want to spend their free weekend going through a political opponent’s dull emails unpaid is beyond me. The fact that there have been thousands of unpaid lefties spending a June weekend going through these emails, as well as an organised campaign by the Guardian, the NYT and other media outlets, shows an unhealthy obsession for the ex-Alaskan governor.

It seems a strange hatred to have if we are expected to believe that Palin is a no-hoper. I think of left-wing no-hopers here in England such as Ed Miliband and Diane Abbott, and I have no hatred for either; in fact I enjoy their presence on the television as I know that the longer they speak, the more harm it does to their cause. I don’t react to the very mention of their names by foaming at the mouth, nor would I spend a sunny weekend scouring through Diane Abbott’s thousands of emails telling her friends just how racist everyone is.

The obvious explanation for this hatred is simply that Palin is not as stupid or as useless as the left try to make us believe – and they know it. They know that despite her folksy Alaskan accent and occasionally peculiar ways of expressing herself, that Palin has an incredible appeal. A strong independent woman (without needing to be reliant of left-wing radical feminism) who stands for common sense conservatism and core American values as found in the Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution, Palin is admired by many Americans and has the skills to be able to change the media narrative and set the debate with a mere tweet or Facebook update.

Whether she becomes President or not, Palin is going to have a powerful influence on both American conservatism, and American politics as a whole in the upcoming future. British conservatives should not buy into the left-wing smears of Palin and should learn from her. Conservatism is at its best when it isn’t hidden away in buzzwords or sound bites; but when it is expressed clearly and simply as an expression of liberty, common sense and personal responsibility. Britain needs its own Sarah Palin; and when the left begins foaming at the mouth at the mention of their name and spending days going through their emails, we will know that we have found them!

President Mitch Daniels?

What do you think?  Does President Mitch Daniels work? It has a pretty good ring to it I think!

I have just finished watching Mitch Daniel's speech to CPAC in its entirety (an extract can be found here), and I am extremely impressed.  His speech was hard hitting, yet jocular when it needed to be, and it labelled the US debt crisis as the new "red menace" which I thought was media savvey, and also very accurate, considering the scope of US debt.  There are a great many people saying that this guy could be an outsider for a 2012 Presidential run, and from that speech, it doesn't necessarily sound like a bad call to make!

I have said for a while that the problem with the current crop of potential Republican nominees is that they are either not conservative enough, or if they are, that they would (through no fault of their own necessarily) make the election about them, and not about the Obama agenda.

For instance, I love Sarah Palin, but if she were to be made the Republican nominee, the election would become all about Sarah Palin and whether she was "fit for office" as opposed to focusing on why Obamunism has been a complete and utter disaster.  The media would pick her apart like in 2008, it would quickly become about personality politics, and that is unfortunately always somewhere where the Democrats win - not because they have particularly great personalities, but because they can draw on their Hollywood resources to make said candidate look like a movie star.  Look at Obama, no personality, but everyone still seems to think he is a really nice, cool kinda guy.

This is why we need someone who has good solid conservative credentials, and has the ability to make sure that the election will be about Obama and American principles, and not silly personality politics.  Mitch Daniels seems to be a possibility for the nomination from this conclusion, even though he is very much on the outskirts at this point.  For me, he seems quiet yet funny, urgent but not ranty, clear but not condescending, and as someone who is very very likeable.  Plus, from a brief glance at his bio, and from what he has said in his speech, he seems to have solid conservative credentials.  He could be the candidate we have been looking for.

Am I sure about this yet?  Of course not!  I would need to see a lot more before I was ready to say "Yup, this is the guy!"  But I think at this point, conservative commentators need to be saying, "You know what?  Let's look at this guy a little closer and see what he is like under a bit of scrutiny."  Instead of engaging in constant debate about Romney and Mormonism, it is time to take a stronger and more intense look at some of the outsiders in the race.  It may be among the outsiders that we find our diamond in the rough!

I genuinely believe that if we can get out of the "Your choice is Palin or Romney or Paul and that's it" then we can have a really interesting primary season that will ultimately pick the very best candidate, and one who can beat Obama's lot in 2012.  That candidate may be someone who comes out of nowhere - like a Mitch Daniels - or it might be someone we have heard of for a while - like a Palin or a Romney.  But it is time to make sure that we do not get focused upon a select cadre of pre-selected candidates, and start looking for what we really want from a potential President.

I do think the right candidate is out there, but I am not sure if we have found them yet.  However, if Mitch Daniels can keep going in the same vein in which he made his CPAC speech, then it is possible that we may have just found the future President of the United States of America.

Gordon Brown's Betrayal of America

The latest revelations by Wikileaks that the British government not only sought the "compassionate release" of the Lockerbie bomber, but also advised Libya on how best to secure that release, is devastating news for the Anglo-American relationship, as well as Britain as a whole.

This revelation shows even more just how morally bankrupt the Labour government was by the time it was approaching its end.  Most normal people, whether American or British, were disgusted at the fact that a known terrorist who had murdered hundreds of innocent people in the worst terror attack on British soil could be even considered for release on "compassionate grounds".

Yet to watch the man not only be released, but then to be greeted by a hero's welcome and much celebration at his arrival back in Libya should have made anyone feel physically sick.  It was clear then that the Labour government had capitulated on both its principles, and its American allies for the sake of some short term goal.  This can only be fully explained by looking at the anti-Americanism that pervades the British left.  One cannot possibly imagine a Labour government daring to offend our European colleagues in such a way!  Can you imagine Labour ever going against anything the European Union tells us to do?  Yet, because it is the Americans - who the left believe to be evil, and responsible for all the suffering in the world - the "compassionate release" was not so hard for Labour to contemplate.

Therefore it is beyond scandalous to discover today that the government was advising Libya on how to go about it from within a week of Megrahi's diagnosis of terminal cancer.  It shows not only a rejection of any principle of justice, morality, or true compassion from Brown's government, as well as an ambivalence to the families of those killed, but also it is a slap in the face of our American allies who lost significantly more of their citizen's in the terrorist attack than we Brits did.

As I have written many times before, the Anglo-American relationship is under severe strain, with an extremely anti-British President in office, and so this revelation could destroy the special relationship.  Hopefully, David Cameron can apologise on behalf of the former government, explain that the new government opposed the policy of "compassionate release" at the time, and does so today.  Maybe this can limit the fallout from this disgraceful revelation.

However, I fear that the chill in Anglo-American relations is about to turn into a deep freeze.  That is, unless we can get someone like Sarah Palin into the White House.

The Anglo-American Debate is Taking Part in Sarah Palin February!

In response to Dana Milbank's idiotic suggestion that everyone try and ignore Sarah Palin for as long as possible, and not speak about her at all, the Daily Telegraph Blogs here in the UK have wisely decided to rebel against this idea.

Sarah Palin is one of the bright lights of the conservative movement, and there are many Brits (myself included) who only wish that we could have an honest, fun, down to earth, and most of all conservative figure such as Palin in British politics.

Rightly spotting how supporting Milbank's suggestion would fall right into the trap of the snobby, anti-Palin left who are only seeking to silence Mrs Palin for their own political agendas, the Telegraph Blogs have declared February to be "Sarah Palin Month" which means that as well as having plenty of posts about the former Alaskan governor, many of their bloggers will be seeking to crowbar in a mention of Sarah Palin into every blogpost that they publish throughout the month of February.

As a Palin loving Brit who fully supports such a move, I have decided to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Telegraph blogs on their noble venture, and have chosen to incorporate this into the Anglo-American Debate for the month of February!  Let Sarah Palin February commence!

Conservatives Must Not be Drawn Into the Left's Opportunism over the Arizona Tragedy

I always claim to know the left very well.  Having been a socialist in my teenage years, having lots of left-wing friends, having gone to one of the most left-wing universities in England, and having read countless left-wing articles and books - I like to think I have the left down pretty well and that I can accurately predict how they will react to a situation or what their next move will be.

Yet what happened yesterday after the awful tragedy in Arizona stunned even this political commentator.  Now, was it predictable that they would make the assumption that because the guy was carrying a gun and he shot a Democrat that he might be a right-winger?  Sure, that was predictable - we all remember Mayor Bloomberg predicting that the Times Square bomber (who turned out to be a run of the mill Muslim terrorist) would be a right-winger upset about healthcare.

What I was not expecting was that a large portion of the left would not only make the assumption, but actively try to blame key right-wing figures for the tragedy even after they had found out that he wasn't a tea-partier or a right-winger or whatever.  In addition, the almost gleeful excitement that such commentators displayed when they felt that they had discovered a link between Palin and the shooting of Rep. Giffords should make any normal person feel physically sick.

Let's be clear, assumptions are natural.  If a plane flies into a building, we would naturally assume that it is Islamic terrorism, and yesterday when we learned that Giffords had been shot, it is natural to think that there is a possibility that this was politically motivated, and the fact that Giffords is a Democrat may suggest that there was a reasonable chance that this was a lunatic right-winger.

Yet to blame Sarah Palin before we had even discovered who the shooter was low enough.  On the evidence of one measly image that talked about political "targets" and mentioned Giffords, they instantly rushed to the judgement that Palin had deliberately provoked some right-winger who had taken this as a hint, and ran off and shot a bunch of people.  The fact that Palin's rhetoric and imagery wasn't anywhere near as strong or as hateful as some of the stuff directed at her, Bush and Limbaugh etc didn't even come into it.  Palin had made some vague reference to "targets" and therefore there was blood on her hands and she was to blame.  That was their line and they were screaming it from the roof tops.

But then, once we had discovered that Loughner was an anti-God, anti-flag, weed smoking, "Communist Manifesto" reading nut job, one would think that the left would backtrack a little bit, but no!  The left have just ignored who the killer was altogether, and have continued, in deliberate contradiction of the facts, to blame Palin, Limbaugh, Beck, Fox (generally anyone who they hate) for the tragedy.  The new argument is that "hateful rhetoric" stoked up by figures on the right is responsible in some vague way for upsetting Loughner and sending him on the killing spree.

Now, it is tempting to run through the arguments.  It is tempting to reiterate that there is no evidence that Loughner listened to Limbaugh, liked Palin, expressed right-wing views or whatever.  It is tempting to reiterate that he expressed views to the contrary, and that were more in line with left-wing views than right-wing views.  It is also tempting to remind people that when it comes to political rhetoric, the left are just as vicious if not more.  The hate-filled rants of O'Donnell, Maher, Garofolo, Grayson etc aren't exactly milkshakes!  And if we are going to point fingers at Sarah Palin's gun language, what about Obama's "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun"?  Could that be "interpreted" as an instruction to bring a gun to a political meeting and start shooting people?  Should we start saying that Obama has blood on his hands?

But all these arguments miss the point to an extent.  It assumes that the left actually believe that Sarah Palin and the right-wing are responsible for these deaths.  I only wish this were the case.  I'm sure they did believe that the right were responsible at first when reports were coming in.  They genuinely believe that everything evil comes from the right and therefore their ideology tells them to assume that any attack must be the right's fault.  The initial assumption was at least genuine, and therefore excusable, if not unfair.

Yet, once the facts were established that this had nothing to do with the right-wing, the way they carried on blaming Palin and the right anyway just shows that they were not interested in the facts.  They were not interested in making sure that this terrible tragedy didn't happen again.  All they were interested in was using the tragedy for their own political ends, and to make it serve themselves.  It takes Rahm Emmanuel's old quip about not letting a crisis go to waste to a new low, and is sickeningly opportunistic as well as a sack full of lies.

Politics can be a scummy business, but this is right in the basement.  It is important that we on the right deflect their criticisms, but do not resort to dropping to their level.  It is tempting to point to Loughner's leftist views and to start inferring that maybe he is one of them, but we mustn't.  We mustn't do this because it would be just as false as what the left are doing - Loughner was not a right winger or a tea partier, but he wasn't a Democrat or a socialist either.  He was a loon, a complete nut who rambled on about political topics in a way that doesn't even put him remotely near reality.

While it is tempting to fight fire with fire, we on the right must show ourselves dignified and above the gross political opportunism that the left are currently bathing in.  When a complete lunatic shoots innocent people, and shows no reason for doing so, it is the lowest form of opportunism to try and use a tragedy to blame one's political opponents when there is no legitimate reason for doing so.

It is in the face of tragedy and suffering where we show who we really are, and many on the left are showing themselves to be grossly immoral cynical opportunists who will use anything in order to smear those that they do not like.  We conservative need to stand back, defend those in our ranks who are under attack, and let the left do what they do.  Our job is not to win an argument by any means, but to do what is right.

November is Coming

With less than 40 days and 40 nights left until the November Elections, we are beginning to see more incredible movie-type trailers for that election.  Here is the latest one from Ben Howe.  It is really good!

Who are the extreme ones?

I know I am posting a lot of videos at the moment, and I am doing this for two reasons.  First, there are a lot of absolutely brilliant videos doing the rounds at the moment which deserve a mention.  Second - I am travelling to New York in a few weeks and have my dissertation on Thomas Jefferson to complete and hand in before I travel, so these videos allow a short snappy post when I am too tired to blog about something in detail.

The big story at the moment is of course the Ground Zero Mosque, and it is interesting to watch the supporters of the mosque constantly dodge the one single question that sticks out like a sore thumb - "No one is questioning your right to build, but why do you want to build there?"  I have yet to see an answer to this.

Instead of dealing with this question, the left are just trying to smear opponents as Islamophobic or extreme or racist or whatever.  The main argument they seem to be using is "Oh well, if we don't allow this mosque, then we are smearing all Muslims as terrorists."  This is of course nonsense, we are just recognising that the extremist branch of Islam would see such a building as a victory (the symbolism would speak volumes), and that however "moderate" the backers might be (although this is yet to be established - a story broke today about how they might be taking money from the Iranian government) this thing would be a magnet for extremists who would see this as the "victory mosque" whether we like it or not.  It is for this reason why there are a lot of moderate Islamic voices saying that this mosque should be a no-no.  Yet this is ignored by the left, who instead prefer simply to smear opponents as racist, extremist Islamophobes.

This leads nicely into this new video, which deals with this accusation that Republicans/Conservatives/Libertarians etc are "extreme" etc.  You hear this a lot from the mainstream media - "Oh no, conservatives shouldn't listen to Limbaugh/Palin/Beck/De Mint etc - they are extreme!!"

Well the latest video asks, "Who exactly are the extreme ones?"  Take a look....

Sarah Palin winds up the left (again)!

I am still not 100% on whether or not Sarah Palin is the way forward for the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination.  Don't get me wrong, I think she will be a strong contender and would support her if she was nominated.  In the same way that I love Rush Limbaugh but wouldn't be completely confident about his chances in the elections, I feel the same way about Palin - she is one of my favourite conservatives figures, but I am not quite there for giving her my thumbs up for 2012.

However, President or not, there is no denying that Sarah Palin still has enormous power, over both conservatives and the liberal left.  The high pitch squeakings from the left about how 'stupid' she is proves this every day.  The more they dismiss her as irrelevant, the more she becomes relevant as they constantly talk about her every activity.  Remember, it was Palin who changed the entire spectrum of the healthcare debate with a quick facebook message that mentioned "death panels."  This brought the healthcare debate into the mass public arena, and the death panels label stuck.  Although the Democrat's managed to eventually pass the healthcare bill, it has been tainted, and is vastly unpopular.  Obama's lot never recovered from that debate-changing facebook message - something so simply did so much!

In the last year she has made no major political moves, yet everything she has touched has turned to gold.  Almost every political candidate she has supported has won, every speech has a packed attendence, every cause she has backed has been popular, her book was a massive best seller, and her Twitter and Facebook accounts can change the political debate with one simple post.

This was shown last week with the 'refudiate' story.  If you have somehow missed this story, Sarah was writing a 'tweet' on the mosque being built very near to Ground Zero (and what an insensitive move such a building would be), and it appears that she hit the wrong button on her blackberry or whatever, and spelt 'repudiate' incorrectly.  She then followed it up with a tweet joking that Shakespeare made up words as well.

Well, if you had been on Twitter that day (as i was) and listened to the mainstream media covering the story, you would think that Sarah had tested a nuclear missile!  It quickly became the top trended topic on Twitter, with manic, screaming updates from various lefties, not only at her spelling mistake and how she was 'seriously' comparing herself to Shakespeare (they can't take a joke, can they?) but also at her "racism" towards Muslims for daring to say that building a mosque right near the site of a site of Islamic terrorism probably isn't the best way forward.

All it actually proved was that with a flick of her finger, Palin once again changed the debate, and got under the skin of the left at the same time.  The "Ground Zero Mosque" was barely mentioned before this week, now it is one of the top news stories.  Once again, the left are crying racism and intolerance, but their anger is fuelled not by Palin's stance on the issue, but by the fact that she is completely in touch with the vast majority of Americans - who question why, out of all the places to build mosques, they have to build one next to the spot of 9-11.   In addition, the venom and sheer hatred levelled at her for simply misspelling a word shows the world not only how venomous and hateful these people are, but also just how much they fear her ability and power.

The truth of the matter is that whether or not Palin runs for the Presidency or not, she is going to be an enormous, and highly influential political figure for many years to come.  Try as they might - the left are unable to 'refudiate' her!