At Politico Jonathan Martin delivers his regularhit piece on Sarah Palin (highlighted as a QOTD at Hot Air)

Palin’s flamboyant rhetoric always has thrilled supporters, but lately it is coming at a new cost: a backlash, not from liberals but from some of the country’s most influential conservative commentators and intellectuals. (Related: Sarah Palin charges critics with ‘blood libel’)

Palin’s politics of grievance and group identity, according to these critics, is a betrayal of conservative principles. For decades, it was a standard line of the right that liberals cynically promoted victimhood to achieve their goals and that they practiced the politics of identity — race, sex and class—over ideas. (Related: Republicans learn cost of attacking Palin)

Among those taking aim at Palin in recent interviews with POLITICO are George F. Will, the elder statesman of conservative columnists; Peter Wehner, a top strategist in George W. Bush’s White House, and Heather Mac Donald, a leading voice with the right-leaning Manhattan Institute.

Matt Labash, a longtime writer for the Weekly Standard, said that because of Palin’s frequent appeals to victimhood and group grievance, “She’s becoming Al Sharpton, Alaska edition.”

At the comments at Right Scoop “Bobby, US Army retd” provides an alternativepoint of view

She is “divisive” because the conservative movement is full of cowards who bend over because they are afraid of the left and the media. Why not fight against the smears? Why not fight for the truth? Instead conservatives run and hide and then wonder why even after 8 years of BUSH the country moved to the left!!!!!!!
While Governor, her state was one of 2 out of 50 that created net jobs. I COULD WRITE FOR HOURS ABOUT HER ACCOMPLISHMENTS, but it would not do a damn thing for people like Krauthammer and other fraud cowardly so called conservatives. How come the other intellectual governors that Krauthammer praises could not eke out some job gains? Odd huh?

WAKE UP!!!! Do you want to know why the jobs are gone? Do you want to to know why your nation is turning into a shit hole? IT IS BECAUSE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. We let it happen. WE CONSERVATIVES LET IT HAPPEN BECAUSE WE SAT ON OUR FUCKING ASSES AND REFUSED TO FIGHT the left for the last 20+ years. Now Sarah is ready to fight, and most of us just let her go out there with no backup, no nothing. She is used as a human shield for LESSER MEN. She is fighting multibillion dollar left wing media companies and two hack political parties every fucking day of her life, and we cannot even muster a defense with the exception of a few websites and the OCCASIONAL defense on talk radio. PATHETIC.

I served in Korea and Vietnam in combat. When I say combat, I mean COMBAT. After that, I worked for the government “unofficially” (use your imagination.) I killed with my bare hands for this country and it makes me sick that even most of my fellow conservatives will not lift a finger to help her. If I was younger and still serving I would be honored to have her as my commander in chief. You can keep the phony tough guy men that get trotted out as candidates. I saw REAL leadership up close and I know what it looks like. Sarah Palin has “IT.” I saw men blown to pieces and other men who still ran forward with the entrails of their best friends still on them. My oh my, how far we have fallen. Those boys had integrity and valor. Today’s conservative movement by and large is not fit to shine their fucking shoes.

Read the rest here….no further comment required….and thanks, Smitty, for picking up Bobby’s cri de coeur at The Other McCain….you get a lot more traffic than me…

A recent OECD report comparing educational attainment of secondary school students across the world in reading, mathematics and science saw the UK and the USA well outside the top ten.

The new UK government  was shocked by this report and believes that unless something is done to reverse this trend by 2030 Britain will have one of the most poorly educated workforces in the world.

Michael Gove, the Tory Secretary of State for Education, is convinced that British schools are not challenging their students and the educational establishment has placed too much emphasis upon keeping kids unpressured than preparing them for what is becoming a tough, unforgiving world. Although exam grades at 16 have “improved” steadily over the last few years Gove suspects that this has been achieved by lowering standards and allowing students to take mickey mouse subjects (Media Studies, Leisure Studies anyone?) instead of harder ones like sciences or languages.

Mr Gove believes that under Labour, many schools pushed children towards less academic qualifications and subjects to boost their league table rankings.

“Labour got its priorities wrong and said kids from poor homes could not do difficult subjects,” he said.

So he has introduced a new benchmark for comparing schools – how many students at 16 score grade C or above in English, Mathematics, a modern language, two sciences and either Geography or History.

Using this benchmark  only about 15% of all 16 year olds achieved a satisfactory standard

The OECD report reinforced this grim indictment of British secondary education

British schoolchildren are now ranked 16th in the world for science, 25th for reading and 28th for maths, according to the OECD’s 2009 PISA report. That compares with a 2000 PISA ranking of 4th for science, 7th for reading and 8th for maths. This is conclusive proof that Labour’s claim to have “improved” Britain’s schools during its period in office is utter nonsense. Spending on education increased by £30 billion under the last government, yet between 2000-09 British schoolchildren plummeted in the international league tables and are now ranked behind those of Poland, Estonia and Slovenia.

 Seeing the disdainful reaction of many Head Teachers to Gove’s proposals (reported approvingly by the BBC – surprise, surprise) one can see the reason why we rank so low. Gove is taking on an entrenched establishment that uses smug self congratulation to camouflage a default position of inertia. The scenario will be brutal and bloody but if he does not win, then within 20 years we will be on the level of Kyrgyztan or Azebaijan……

Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

The sharpened steel in the majestic, lyrical rolling thunder of the King James Bible gives out a clear warning to us all when we feel tempted to rush to judgement on the conduct of others. So when a man broadcasts the contents of his pleas to God who are we to comment upon the degree of his sincerity?

But words are easy. Action, surely, is a more acceptable currency.

Newt Gingrich has gone public with his own inner turmoil.

Newt Gingrich, who is expected to run for President tells The Brody File that he “felt compelled to seek God’s forgiveness” over his past marital infidelity. And now that he’s at the grandfather stage he is “truly enjoying the depths of my life in ways that I never dreamed it was possible.”

In the end, the presidency is different than any other job. You’re looking for somebody who is going to lead the nation. You’re looking for somebody who should be, ideally, the unifier of the nation. And, you’re looking to somebody to whom you’re going to loan enormous power for four years.

Way back in the early 1960s a leading UK Conservative Cabinet minister, John Profumo, was caught up in a prostitute scandal. He immediately resigned, left politics and spent the rest of his life working for an obscure charity helping the poor and the homeless.

Following his exit from politics, Profumo dedicated himself to charity work in the East End of London, and was awarded the CBE in 1975…..

This morning, the former Tory minister and journalist Bill Deedes, a friend of Profumo, told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme: “He atoned for his mistakes and I think will, on death, receive his reward for that.”

“The fact is what he did, and continued to do until quite recently, was a very long stint of social work for the poor of east London, and if that isn’t considered to be sufficient atonement for the mistake he made, then there is no such thing as forgiveness,” he said.

Two men who repented but with very different concepts of redemption

Which one would you trust?

Being an Englishman and a political junkie I watch BBC Newsnight regularly. As with the US networks the BBC has an inbuilt left/liberal bias but, although you could never get an Obama/Clinton style love-in for Governor Palin, the recent Newsnight profile of her was reasonably fair.

Even anchor Jeremy Paxman, who can be witheringly sarcastic about politicians, described Palin as the best known woman in American politics without even a micron of snark.

Some kudos, as well, for Jackie Long because she got  interesting answers – and even the rather irritating “intellectually challenged” question did give the governor an opportunity to return  fire. The setting did not suit itself to “policy” questions so it had to be more about showing her as a person and she came across as bright, lively, attractive and normal rather than the image of someone from the Beverley Hillbillies that is often portrayed even in right wing UK papers like the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph.

The interview with Sarah’s parents was incredibly touching and conveyed a beautiful picture of warmth and love. That they opened up to Jackie Long in such a way must be a tribute to her skill as an interviewer since the whole family is, for good reason, extremely suspicious of the media. Moreover the producers just allowed them to make their own case without “interpretation” or demeaning comments. My friend Cubachi  was more critical of the programme than I but she did admire the production values.

The vox pops were as to be expected though how selective they were is open to question but at least the reporter treated Tea Partiers and gun enthusiasts as normal folk rather than characters from Li’l Abner

I think the Shannyn Moore clip was priceless…maybe the BBC producers (hardly likely to be Palinistas) nevertheless recognised a kook when they saw one and gave her enough rope to hang herself.

The conclusion was that, although there are plenty of people who still have to make their minds up, Governor Palin is still a potent political force and should not be underestimated.

Not exactly an overwhelming encomium for the ‘Cuda – but quite a bit fairer than a lot of the stuff I have seen from American TV

One in the eye for George Will?

Ryan Streeter, one of America’s leading conservative commentators, once more tells the world that Sarah Palin needs to get back into the kitchen and leave important money stuff to the menfolk (specifically Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels and..surprise, surprise…Jeb Bush…)

Being a former Bush staffer Ryan Streeter is clearly just the guy to wax lyrically about fiscal rectitude. As part of his campaign to get Jeb Bush into the White House in January 2013 (and, no doubt, to get Mr Streeter back onto the government’s payroll) America’s top conservative blogger continues his campaign to derail Sarah Palin by bigging up potential rivals and this time it’s Coulter’s crush Governor Christie of New Jersey

Ryan Streeter reckons that Governor Palin’s fiscal record in Alaska does not bear comparison with Governor Christie

Her record as governor was fine, but it hardly looks courageous. Yes, she cut earmarks, sold the state jet, took a pay cut, used the pocket veto to cut funding, and socked funds away for a rainy day. But she also signed a big budget increase and went hunting for federal earmarks to the tune of a couple hundred million dollars while trimming them at home. Her record is more of a mixed bag than a model of fiscal innovation. Her comments  only invite more scrutiny of her record than she probably wants or needs right now.

Moreover she had it easier in Alaska because she was a Republican Governor in a red state

Courage manifests itself in various ways, one of which is bucking political opinion and pressure – which Christie has had to do in ways she hasn’t. New Jersey and Alaska are a bit different politically, to put it mildly

Excuse me?  For a guy who claims to be the greatest living expert on the GOP it seems strange that Streeter appears to have no knowledge of the Corrupt Bastards Club, Palin’s road to power as Republican outsider against the Murkowski machine or her fight against the Big Oil interests that dominated Alaskan politics for so long – or that at times the Alaska GOP establishment acted as a kind of unofficial opposition against her throughout her governorship?

But then can someone who values Ari Fleischer’s  opinion on the viability of a Palin candidature in 2012 really be expected to have done much homework on her? As for Streeter’s admiration of Christie as the great white hope of American conservatives it might be useful to follow Reagan’s maxim and trust and verify Christie on Obamacare, illegal immigration, gun control and the Tea Party.

Perhaps Streeter would also like to comment on the ethics of preferring to nail a Democratic mayor rather than a trafficker of underage sex slaves.

Motes, beams anyone?

THE MAN IN THE ARENA

Excerpt from the speech “Citizenship In A Republic”, delivered at the Sorbonne, in Paris, France on 23 April, 1910

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

h/t Paul-Cincy, commenting at Hot Air

AJ Kelshiker is petite, attractive and as tough as nails. She is a former Marine, lives in California and this elderly Englishman, thousands of miles away across the wide Atlantic, is proud to be her friend. I am not certain to what extent I would agree with her on the issue of DADT but I have an immense respect for the fire of her conviction which springs from her own personal experience. This is why I offered her this platform on my blog.

AJ is active in her own local GOP, she is a Tea Partier and has the same burning pride in the USA as I have in my own country. She is just one of many Americans I met in Chicago in November who see Sarah Palin as the embodiment of everything they value in America.  When I hear Palin’s detractors deride people like AJ as cultists and unthinking groupies I have to smile. AJ is fiercely independent with her own strongly held political and moral positions. She might not be particularly tall but I wouldn’t spill her beer.

When I read all the empty waffling spewed forth by lobbyists, strategists and consultants faithfully regurgitated by battalions of sycophantic, self serving media hacks I feel the weight of a black cloud of pessimism pressing down on my heart. But then I realise that there must be thousands of fine young people like AJ who are determined to fight back and reclaim the future for freedom and independence of spirit – and that makes me feel the glass is half full rather than half empty…..

British historian Niall Ferguson, in a forthcoming book, thinks he has cracked one of the most intriguing of cultural conundrums – how it was that the West became the springboard for the explosion of knowledge, ideas and sheer energy that defines the modern world.

It is a conundrum because up to about 1400 the axis of civilisation was to be found towards the East where the Arabs and Chinese were well ahead of Europeans in the fields of mathematics, science, engineering and philosophy.

Ferguson identifies six key factors which unleashed the western dynamic.

“1. Competition: a decentralisation of political and economic life, which created the launch pad for both nation states and capitalism.
2. Science: a way of understanding and ultimately changing the natural world, which gave the West (among other things) a major military advantage over the Rest.
3. Property rights: the rule of law as a means of protecting private owners and peacefully resolving disputes between them, which formed the basis for the most stable form of representative government.
4. Medicine: a branch of science that allowed a major improvement in health and life expectancy, beginning in Western societies, but also in their colonies.
5. The consumer society: a mode of material living in which the production and purchase of clothing and other consumer goods play a central economic role, and without which the Industrial Revolution would have been unsustainable.
6. The work ethic: a moral framework and mode of activity derivable from (among other sources) Protestant Christianity, which provides the glue for the dynamic and potentially unstable society created by apps 1 to 5”

Looking to the future he identifies these factors as absolutely essential if any other society is to catch up or overtake the West. It would be interesting to see how many boxes could be ticked for modern China and India.

Exit question: How many of the above factors have the forces of the Western Left sought to undermine over the last fifty years?

h/t Coffee House

In March 2009 the 2^nd Battalion of the Royal Anglian Regiment (“The Poachers”) returned from a tour of duty in Afghanistan and marched through the streets of Luton, one of their main recruiting towns, with bayonets fixed and colours flying.

The streets were crowded with families, friends and citizens, all giving them a proud welcome – except for one tiny group of local muslims who taunted them with banners and jeers, calling the soldiers rapists, murderers and baby killers.

Police protected them from angry locals but five of the protesters were later convicted of abusive conduct and harassment.

The five appealed to the High Court, claiming that they were merely exercising their right of free speech under the European Convention of Human Rights and, frankly, many expected their appeal to be accepted given the current record of our courts and judges.

But we were in for a surprise – not only did the High Court dismiss their plea but Lord Justices Gross and Davis laid down an important marker for this and future cases

The focus on minority rights “should not result in overlooking the rights of the majority” when it comes to freedom of speech

Lord Justice Gross

The High Court said the freedom to protest was an important right and protesters should be protected but it was not an unqualified right and, when it turned abusive it was a clear threat to public order and was therefore a breach of the law

These were not just generalised statements of views, vigorously expressed, on the morality of the war but were personally abusive and potentially defamatory of those soldiers.

That the soldiers themselves were, as it happened, broad shouldered enough not to care one jot does not matter

Common sense on “human rights” from a High Court Judge – I’ll drink to that….