Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

EXCLUSIVE–PALIN ADVISERS: 'UNCONSCIONABLE' MAINSTREAM PRESS EXPLOITED THATCHER'S DEATH FOR SMEARS; CONFIRMED BY THATCHER STAFF

Posted by on Apr. 9, 2013 at 9:15 PM
  • 3 Replies



Mainstream media publications immediately exploited the passing of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher on Monday to again advance their political agendas by falsely smearing former Alaska Gov. and Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin. 

In a rush to write whatever they could to tarnish both, outlets like Politico and theWashington Post resorted to "reporting" on a fictitious story and an imaginary trip that have already been debunked years ago.

The Post, a publication known for its liberal agenda, immediately "re-upped" the debunked story about Thatcher having snubbed Palin when Chris Cillizza, the editor of "The Fix," allowed his underling to publish parts of the disproven 2011 report. 

Politico ironically included the story in its article about Thatcher as well, even though the publication debunked the story two years ago. 

In 2011, a left-wing and anti-Thatcher British newspaper, the Guardian, tried to smear Palin by writing a fictitious story, with an anonymous quote, about how Thatcher supposedly snubbed Palin for a meeting that had never even been scheduled, as both camps immediately confirmed. The British newspaper also claimed Thatcher called Palin "nuts."  

Rebecca Mansour, a longtime Palin advisor who would have knowledge of all of Palin's scheduled meetings, told Breitbart News that Palin never had the chance to meet Thatcher.

"Mrs. Thatcher made clear to us through her staff that there was an open invitation to meet, of course, contingent on Mrs. Thatcher's health, and this was reported in the British media," Mansour told Breitbart News. "Unfortunately, Governor Palin did not have the opportunity to travel to the UK, and she along with grateful people and nations across the globe morn Mrs. Thatcher's loss."

Doug McMarlin, another Palin advisor, told Breitbart News that it was "unconscionable" that people would use Thatcher's passing as yet another excuse to attack Palin. 

"It is unconscionable that Politico and others use the passing of such an individual as Margaret Thatcher as an opportunity for an ankle-biting missive," McMarlin told Breitbart News. "The focus should be on the life and legacy of Prime Minister Thatcher, not on using this occasion to further the agenda of reporters who don't take the time to research their own stories and create a narrative that only fits their agenda."

Mainstream media outlets, including Politico, and Thatcher's aides instantaneously debunked the story two years ago. 

John O’Sullivan, a former Thatcher aide, immediately told the National Review then:  

Rich, Curious about this report, I contacted old colleagues in the Thatcher office and got the following denial: “We didn’t say this; we didn’t authorize anyone else to say this; and it doesn’t represent Lady Thatcher’s opinion of Governor Palin.”
This doesn’t necessarily mean that the two ladies will meet. Lady Thatcher has retired from active public life for health reasons and sees very few people outside her circle of friends. My guess is that any final decision would be made on health grounds shortly before such a meeting. But I’m not even sure Governor Palin’s office has approached Lady Thatcher about one.
The bottom line, though, is that Lady Thatcher certainly doesn’t think Sarah Palin is “nuts.” And given the inaccurate abuse she herself has received over the years, the accusation may even recommend the Governor to her.

Nile Gardiner, another former aide to Thatcher who is a Washington-based reporter for the Telegraph, spoke to Thatcher's office as well, and wrote: 
I have spoken to Lady Thatcher’s Private Office regarding the story, and they confirm that the attack on Sarah Palin definitely did not come from her office, and in no way reflects her views. As a former aide to Margaret Thatcher myself, I can attest that this kind of thinking is entirely alien to her, and that such remarks would never be made by her office. She has always warmly welcomed like-minded figures in the United States, and has in the past met with numerous US presidential candidates and political dignitaries when they have visited London. But at the age of 85 she is now able to receive very few visitors at all.
There was never any snub of Sarah Palin by Lady Thatcher’s office. However, there has been a great deal of mischief-making and unpleasantness from sections of the liberal press in a vain and futile attempt to use Margaret Thatcher’s name to smear a major US politician.

But mainstream publications did not even bother to research these accounts--and what had been reported by their own outlets--in a rush to score political points. 

Thatcher got such treatment from the liberal press as well because she, as Palin wrote, was "at heart a populist taking on the Conservative party’s old guard, who disdainfully referred to her as 'That Woman.'" Thatcher disdained the elite, referring to them as the "the not so grand grandees," and the "grocer's daughter from the back of beyond" broke class barriers not with "powerful patronage," but with "powerful ideas" that were based on liberty. 

As Thatcher famously said, “I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”

by on Apr. 9, 2013 at 9:15 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-3):
SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on Apr. 10, 2013 at 2:18 AM

BUMP!

-Celestial-
by Pepperlynn on Apr. 10, 2013 at 3:47 AM

Palin and Thatcher represent vastly different conservative traditions

Palin and Thatcher represent vastly different conservative traditions

Sarah Palin is definitely not the new Margaret Thatcher, or at least not in the opinion of Maggie’s staff. When the Governor told reporters that she would like to meet the Prime Minister during her world tour next month, a Thatcher aide reportedly said, “Lady Thatcher will not be seeing Sarah Palin. That would be belittling for Margaret. Sarah Palin is nuts.”American conservatives were outraged, European liberals were pleasantly surprised. But why would the woman who forged perhaps the most important transatlantic political romance in modern history (when he died, Thatcher called Ronald Reagan “one of my closest political and dearest personal friends”) reject the advances of the most archetypal of contemporary American conservatives? We might presume that the aide was talking out of turn, that he had “gone rogue”. But the “nuts” jibe actually reflects a profound cultural difference between the British and American right. Beyond a dislike for taxes and deficits, the two have less and less in common as each year passes.

When Thatcher was Prime Minister, American and British conservatives were bosom buddies. British monetarists took their inspiration from Milton Friedman and the Chicago school of economics, and both administrations watched each other’s fiscal experiments with interest. In foreign policy there were isolated differences – Reagan was a multilateralist, Thatcher was a fan of the nuclear deterrent. But they both believed Communism could be defeated and were united in their disregard for detent. Back then, The Lady kept an open door for visiting American conservatives. In 1975, she even met with Alabama Governor George Wallace (as did Labour PM Hard Wilson). Wallace was the man who declared “segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever” at his inauguration, the first salvo in a violent struggle to keep Alabama’s schools racially segregated. He was married to a former water-ski champion and had an unpleasant habit of constantly spitting into a handkerchief, regardless of the stature of the company he was in. For redneck nuttiness, Wallace was at the top of his game.

So why, 36 years later, are aides suddenly wary of a visiting American conservative? It could be an aversion unique to Palin, but it’s hard to imagine any of the Tea Party or religious right receiving a warm reception in the UK. The British groups that have embraced the Tea Party tend to be rather fringe. And the English Defence League is not a particularly welcome endorsement.

So what divides the British and American right? According to David Cameron, it is the perception of cultural difference. “How shall I put this?” he wondered aloud in an interview. “We seem to have drifted apart… there is an element of American conservatism that is headed in a very culture war direction, which is just different.” Cameron’s Tories redefined themselves as a caring, cosmopolitan party by embracing causes like gay rights or environmentalism. The current UK Minister of State for Energy and Climate Change left his wife for his male interior decorator. It’s hard to imagine a Republican administration showing that degree of tolerance.

Cameron was wrong to presume that all Tea Party people are social conservatives – many are “leave me alone” libertarians and gay marriage has received some surprising support among the GOP leadership. But the perception that the American right is culturally regressive is more powerful than the reality – and Palin is the figurehead for that conflation of economic and social conservatism. For instance, in the UK the deficit is usually discussed as an economic problem. Once the books have been balanced, Britain can get back to spending money on the things the government can do to help individuals – healthcare, education, social provision etc. In the US, the deficit is explicitly, or implicitly, understood to be a moral problem. Paul Ryan, the Republican fiscal supremo in the House, described balancing the budget as “a moralchallenge involving questions of principle and purpose.  The size of the budget is a symptom of deeper causes, and it points to different ideas about government.” In the American conservative mind, there is a link between debt and moral decadence. The welfare state, they say, encourages bad behaviour like laziness or having children out of wedlock. Deconstructing the state will encourage people to rely upon traditional sources of authority and charity that encourage self-discipline and Judeo-Christian morality. It is a Puritan ideal that reaches right back to the Founding Fathers. The Fathers were obsessed with the threat of debt, which they associated with slavery and reliance upon others. Dependency on easy money, alcohol or sex was symptomatic of moral decline – visible symptoms, in the Calvinist mind, of damnation. The British might titter at the thought of a prayer for the debt ceiling, but to many American conservatives the issue has a spiritual dimension as strong as – and related to – abortion or illegitimacy.

American conservatives exist to shrink government and restore moral order. British Tories exist to stay in power. That means that while American conservatives defend the radical, revolutionary, often deeply religious values of the Founding Fathers, British Toryism survives by adapting to the social orthodoxy of the day. At certain points in history, these tendencies have found common purpose. But today they are divided by vastly different responses to cultural change. The tragedy for their respective populations is that American conservatism lacks a moderating influence, while British conservatism lacks any sense of moral order. To many voters, who yearn for an intelligent synthesis of the two, both parties can seem a little “nuts”.

http://telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100091840/the-margaret-thatcher-sarah-palin-snub-exposes-the-growing-gulf-between-british-and-american-conservatives/

Clairwil
by Gold Member on Apr. 10, 2013 at 6:08 AM
1 mom liked this
Quoting SallyMJ:


Mainstream media publications immediately exploited the passing of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher on Monday to again advance their political agendas by falsely smearing former Alaska Gov. and Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin. 

In a rush to write whatever they could to tarnish both, outlets like Politico and theWashington Post resorted to "reporting" on a fictitious story and an imaginary trip that have already been debunked years ago.

The Post, a publication known for its liberal agenda, immediately "re-upped" the debunked story about Thatcher having snubbed Palin

That's an incredibly misleading title.

If you follow the link to the Post's story, they present the information about the 'debunking'.   That's hardly a smear or bad reporting by the Post.

5) Spurning Sarah Palin: In 2011, the Guardian newspaper reported that Thatcher would not be meeting with Sarah Palin during Palin’s trip to London. “Lady Thatcher will not be seeing Sarah Palin. That would be belittling for Margaret. Sarah Palin is nuts,” the paper quoted one Thatcher ally as saying. The reported rejection sparked an outcry among conservatives in the United States, lending a great deal of attention to the non-meeting.

It also sparked dispute over whether Thatcher’s inner circle was in fact rejecting Palin. Nile Gardner, a former aide to Thatcher who is a foreign affairs analyst and political commentator at the Daily Telegaph wrote at the time: “I have spoken to Lady Thatcher’s Private Office regarding the story, and they confirm that the attack on Sarah Palin definitely did not come from her office, and in no way reflects her views. As a former aide to Margaret Thatcher myself, I can attest that this kind of thinking is entirely alien to her, and that such remarks would never be made by her office.”


Protesting about this story in the Post sounds more like Palin's camp seeing an opportunity to kick up a fuss and try yet again to ride a bit on Thatcher's coat tails.

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)