Stand up and cheer!

Work demands notwithstanding, I refuse to be the only conservative blog in America that doesn’t post this video of Daniel Hannan, MEP, savaging Gordon Brown’s economic policies — the same policies that Obama seeks to impose here, only on a larger scale.  If this doesn’t have you standing up in your seat, screaming and cheering, then you need to hie yourself to a doctor, because you might be dead:

(Sadly, Hannan may be somewhat anomalous.  Even as he speaks with tremendous clarity, strength, and intelligence, British schools are banishing history from their classrooms and citizens who suggest that gypsy campers might contribute to clean-up costs in their local-government sponsored encampments are being publicly branded as racists.)

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. gpc31 says

    To tie in with your previous post, “If the dead-tree media falls in the forest and no one hears it”…

    From Hannan’s own blog, courtesy of Instapundit:

    “The internet has changed politics – changed it utterly and forever. Twenty-four hours ago, I made a three-minute speech in the European Parliament, aimed at Gordon Brown. I tipped off the BBC and some of the newspaper correspondents but, unsurprisingly, they ignored me: I am, after all, simply a backbench MEP. When I woke up this morning, my phone was clogged with texts, my email inbox with messages. Overnight, the YouTube clip of my remarks had attracted over 36,000 hits. By today, it was the most watched video in Britain.

    How did it happen, in the absence of any media coverage? The answer is that political reporters no longer get to decide what’s news.”

  2. gpc31 says

    Thank you, but pure serendipity on my part. I am grateful to Book and you, Charles Martel, Deana, Mike, Ymarsakar, SueK. et.al. — don’t want to miss anyone — to all the regulars for news and insights.

  3. Charles Martel says

    I’m exhilarated! I did not think that men such as this still existed in Britain, men not only capable of righteous anger but also of cogency and a stirring command of our wonderful English tongue.

    Please, please let this video go viral. Maybe some American backbencher whose eloquence we’ve never suspected will rise and smite Obama (and maybe Chris Matthews while he’s at it).

    gpc31, thank you for your kind words.

  4. says

    Be SURE, everyone, to go to his blog and check out some of his other stuff — this guy is a TREASURE!!

    Clone him, and bring the clones back here to the U.S. and populate our government with them.

    I love this guy!!

    By the way, if you read his blog, he supported Obama, and refuses to denounce him…… Interesting. How can he not see that we’re being led by the same kind of boob that his country is……..?

  5. says

    Earl, I think he simply said it was early days yet, and he was going to withhold judgment on Obama. Probably a wise thing to do, considering he’s a Brit, and can be attacked for not being conversant with American politics.

    It does seem to be going viral. On his blog, he mentions 20,000 hits as of about 20 hours ago. It’s now up to over half a million hits — which is pretty good for less than one day.

  6. says

    You’re right…..only you bypass the fact that this “Conservative” Brit admits to supporting Obama over McCain in the election…..he wasn’t being “careful” about being attacked “for not being conversant with American politics” THEN, now, was he?

    I really don’t want to get all snarky….but much as I love the guy, I refuse to close my eyes to what appears to me to be a GIANT pimple on his wonderfulness.

    Do YOU have a rational explanation for why this guy backed Obama? And for the apparent fact that trillions of dollars in debt, and more to come, hasn’t tipped him off to the fact that we have a “high-melanin Gordon Brown” on our hands over here across the pond? What will it take?!

  7. says

    No, I don’t know why he supported Obama — other than the fact that he wasn’t paying attention and was swept away by the superficial wonderfulness being trumpeted across the Atlantic. He may also have been trying to be PC, which is easier to do when it’s someone else’s country. And yes, you’re right, it makes him seem more like a savant, someone ordinary with a flash of genius, than an actual conservative wunderkind.

  8. says

    The Brits, in the style of Blair, always tends to produce good grammarians and rhetoricians. Their style of oration is much less formulaic than our own stump speeches. But, Britain still cowtows to PC and “multicultural” attributes. Even as they try to be fiscally conservative, they have abandoned conservative social norms in favor of progressive-liberal and transational policies that have already destroyed the bedrock of British character, and it is character which underlies all the fancy rhetoric.

  9. Oldflyer says

    Although the movement seems to be in the opposite direction, I have not quite given up on the notion that British society can return to sanity. I look at the model of Denmark, which seemed to be sliding down the same path, until they reared up and said “enough; we will not sacrifice our heritage”. Now, it remains to be seen whether they will hold fast over the long term.

    The British parliamentary system, and the House of Commons” lend itself to more direct confrontation and rhetorical flair than we are accustomed to. It is very entertaining, but frankly I don’t know if it is any more effective. Because of the system, politics are very local, and that which is said on the national stage less significant when elections roll around.

    Finally, since self-proclaimed Conservative American stalwarts, who had reason to inspect Obama much more closely, seemed in thrall I can hardly fault a foreigner. I am thinking of Colin Powell, Peggy Noonan, Kathleen Parker, Christopher Buckley, off the top of my head. Then too, given that the alternative was McCain, one could use that as an excuse.

  10. suek says

    When Tony Blair entered our consciousness as a supporter of Bush and the Iraq War, I couldn’t get enough of him. His speaking ability was a joy to listen to. His grasp of facts in his weekly House confrontations was entertaining enough to have it’s own channel – even though I knew nothing about the specifics of the debates. Then I started reading about what was happening in England. And it wasn’t good. Not only was it not good, but it was _bad_, imo. Eventually, I came to the conclusion that the only good thing Tony Blair had to offer was his support of Bush in the Iraq Conflict.

    What a let down. The only person we’ve had in recent years that was even comparable – that I know of – was Wm Buckley – and even he wasn’t so much a dynamic speaker as an incomparable debater. And writer. I couldn’t read a column of his without having to reach for a dictionary at least _once_ during the read.

    And I think that that’s a lot of the pull that Obama has. He’s “trained” in the Southern Baptist Fundamental preaching style – even if the religious link here is all messed up. I’m Catholic. The last dynamic Catholic preacher I can remember is Bishop Fulton Sheen. Church sermons at weekly Mass are instructional – but not inspiring. We don’t have fire and brimstone preachers. Those Southern Baptist preachers, though…that’s what they _do_. Get those people _up_ on their feet!!! And I think _that’s_ what Obama learned in church. It has a rhythm – and when you listen to him, you can hear it…the sentences of a certain length – and that length repeated. Almost like a poetry. And it invites participation…the “Amen”s. Catholicism appeals to reason (whether you agree to the rationale or not), Fundamentalism of various sorts appeal to the emotion. There’s a real schism between the two forms of religion so that even if we were perfectly agreed on the morals each presents, we’d have a hard time worshipping together.

    Anyway….what I’m trying to say is that Conservatives need an Elmer Gantry. There seems to be a real shortage of _speakers_ out there – and when you’re trying to inspire people, cold hard reason just doesn’t cut it for a lot of people.

  11. says

    I understand what you’re saying, Suek….but I CANNOT listen to the man. I turn my radio off whenever they play a clip of him talking. There’s actually a physical reaction at the sound of his voice, the rhythm of his speech, etc.

    I didn’t grow up a Southern Baptist – my church has a more staid sermon style – so perhaps that’s my “problem”. But, I also have NEVER wanted to listen to someone say nothing much, no matter how beautifully he’s saying it. Life is too short, and there are many more worthwhile things to do with that time.

    Finally, he LIES….over and over and over. I object to this, as well as to his plans for me and my property. Together, these make it absolutely impossible for me to listen to the President. I just won’t.

  12. Mike Devx says

    I was wowed by Obama’s speech at the 2004 Dem Convention. It took me two years to discard that admiration and become cynical. And then another two years to descend into complete disgust and total mistrust.

    I am fairly certain that, in pursuit of a still-shadowy and hidden Statist agenda, Obama will willfully harm us all – with TOTAL deliberateness – in order to get his hidden agenda enacted. It’s not all hidden! But I don’t think we see its complete form yet.

    And the man is intrinsically a very angry man. And that bitter, 24/7 anger is directed at America, or at least at the America that we here love.

    Daniel Hannan does give great speeches; due to Parliamentary rules, he’s usually limited to one minute, and he’s a master at them. His three-minute takedown of Gordon Brown was an opportunity for him to go lengthier, and boy, did he deliver!

    On his blog is a sit-down video with a BBC commentator and an ideological opponent. He’s not as effective as with his speeches, but what does come across is a congruity and consistency – the man is real AND he gives great speeches. Unlike Obama, who can give great speeches, but has no congruity, whcih becomes clear when he’s off the teleprompter and must wing it. Nastiness and startling truths emerge from time to time because the inner-Obama is totally inconsistent with the outer-Obama. He must rely constantly on deceit and deception, because if he ever let the truth of what he believes and wants slide out of his mouth, he would be run out of our great country – if any other country would even TAKE him once the truth was known.

    Hannan is consistent and his words are always true to himself. We’ll see how long he, and other conservatives across the pond, continue to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. He is sounding a few serious criticisms, though they be only one-liners at this point. In fairness, how many of us could deliver an all-encompassing critique of Gordon Brown?

  13. says

    Excellent point, Mike…..I know I don’t approve of the guy, but adding specifics is not in the cards. OK for me, the private citizen; but if I were giving public speeches, I’d have to either get educated, or shut my big mouth.

    Hannan is probably being wise – I’ll cut him some slack…..for a while!

    :-)

  14. suek says

    >>It remains to be seen who will be its head.>>

    I suspect Obama would like that job. I think he’d have had a better chance if he hadn’t been elected President. But then…how does one _get_ that job? is it elective or appointed? if elected, by whom? I’m guessing that they have a board that elects – in that case, Obama might stand a chance…they’ll figure they can clean his clock. Or ours, as the case may be.

  15. DonnaC says

    In case you missed it, Hannity interviewed him last night, and it was amazing. I’ll tell you what, this guy doesn’t need a teleprompter!

    Last night he gave his opinion of socialized medicine, and it was eye opening. He told of the horrors they experience in Great Britain. If you missed it, go to the FOX news website and pull up the video from Hannity’s America from last night.

  16. Mike Devx says

    DonnaC,

    >> In case you missed it, Hannity interviewed him last night, and it was amazing. I’ll tell you what, this guy doesn’t need a teleprompter!

    One other thing I noticed in the 3 min 30 second video takedown of Gordon Brown:

    Over the course of the entire speech, Daniel Hannon spoke with great clarity and focus. He glanced down only six times that I counted, for a total of no more than five seconds. The rest of the time he was speaking clearly and urgently, looking forward at Gordon Brown.

    He looked down for less than five seconds, in three minutes and thirty seconds!
    That’s part of the nearly-subconscious effect of creating a truly great speech.

    You could say it’s nothing more than a great memorized speech. But when you look at his recent appearances on Hannity, and Glenn Beck, and Cavuto… you see a continued clarity and congruity while unscripted. You see a genuine good guy, who has his convictions, and can express them with calm confidence.

    I heard Rush for a few minutes today on my way home; he said Hannan is getting all this attention mostly because of the accent, and we Americans treat a British accent as an automatic granting of immense authority. I think Rush is totally missing a whole hell of a lot more here. We’re responding to this performance because it is powerful, it is authentic, it is clear; he uses examples and anecdotes with ease; he’s not full of himself and bombastic. His sentences and paragraphs are not weak and lazy.

    He makes Obama, off his teleprompter at least, look utterly pathetic, both from Obama’s inability to craft an impromptu speech without a hundred er’s and uh’s, and for Obama’s complete and obvious lack of authenticity, as he bobs and weaves his way from one clever deceit to another.

Leave a Reply