Skip to main content
Sarah Palin

This woman is a serious candidate who is going to play well. She is, in my opinion, under qualified. She should not be let near foreign policy. Her record in office, and as a political actor, such as it is, suggests a very great lack of judgment. Yet she will rally rural America, she will make inroads to the suburbs because the Democrats won't neutralise abortion as an issue, and she will allow Republicans to escape responsibility for the deficit.

The way she is being attacked is incompetent, over-the-top, and reminiscent of the failed way that the 'Left' and internal opponents dealt with Margaret Thatcher. I wrote yesterday that Barack Obama was never to be underestimated; I want to add today, nor should Sarah Palin be.

That speech she made yesterday was low-down dirty, mischievous and conversational enough to have been made by Richard Nixon, and considerably more convincing than his efforts in the fifties.

UPDATE: The Palin Speech seems to have had an unexpected effect. Instead of reaching for the smear machine, Obama and Biden kept on message; and the Obama campaign, as a result of the fear of God (probably literally) Palin put into Democrats, made $10 millions in donations. McCain made $1 million. This election campaign continues to be counter-intuitive and, given the way the polls are so unreliable, highly unpredictable. I notice that Obama has broken 50% in some polls, which suggests to me that Hillary Democrats with half a brain or more have gone to him in a way their heroine could never have encouraged. What's better--watching what Palin does to these people's heads, or watching what the thought of Obama does to her?

I do not, unfortunately, live in the USA, pay US taxes, or breathe the air of a genuinely free, get-up-and go sort of a country. We have Gordon Brown doing a George Lazenby tribute (not that he was a bad Bond) and the English to deal with, so don't be too hard on me if you've taken offence.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I resign from the Labour Party The likes of Andy Burnham, Hazel Blears, Mary Honeyball and Luke Akehurst are now representative of the Labour Party. They have at least given me a clear mind in recent days, and for that, I suppose, I should be grateful. I have been a Labour member since I was 16, in a steeltown. I can just about accept that student union hacks with no proper job experience can spend their time undercutting unions and selling public administration to their mates, because something could arise that may be better. I can also accept that some immigrants, because of a misplaced desire to avoid the appearance of racism, are more 'acceptable' to the Left than others, so my own family's Irish Catholicism can be something to be sneered at by the ranks of Labour activists. I can accept that there may be a fiscal case for not taxing the super rich with capital gains, but not for truckling to them or sucking up to the likes of Rupert Murdoch. I can accept that there mig...

What really happened to JFK and America in Dallas?

 I realised some time ago that my students do not understand references to the events of November 1963 in Dallas anymore. So I have been using a break to compile a briefing book on the events, the use of commissions and enquiries to pursue particular narratives, and the embedding of the JFK assassination in American culture. This is the first chapter. It is a very long read. All mistakes are my own.  Before the Assassination Lee Harvey Oswald was a US Marine and radar operator at the Atsugi naval base, carrying an elevated clearance. He was also learning Russian and loudly proclaiming his Marxist-Leninist sympathies. These were not investigated or treated as a security risk. [1] Whilst at Atsugi, Oswald probably became one of a number of American marines in a programme to identify moles within the security establishment. This required him to cut his Marine service short by suggesting that he had to look after a sick mother, and also that he wished to seek higher education ...
A Jacksonian Republican Party Democrats in the United States frequently lay claim to the heritage of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. They present the two as tribunes of the revolutionary people, and Jefferson-Jackson dinners are often occasions at which aspiring candidates can strut their demotic stuff, as it were. Both Presidents were opposed to coalitions made up of those they saw as 'elitists' and federal empire-builders, in the Federalist or Whig Parties. J-J (to employ a short and composite form, a bit like the creators of San Trovaso in Venice) were nationalists, tough on foreign crime, sure of their often violent support, and ferocious in the support of presidents who protected the republic. They upheld gun rights and, those of the traditional holders of property, emphasised the rights of States, and an armed citzenry, and in general thought all opposed to them belonged to some conspiracy, probably associated with Europe, to take away their Scots-Irish and democrat...