Silver was bad enough.
And brown is emerging.
How boring can we get?
One thing’s for sure—nobody gets a white car because it doesn’t show the dirt.
Lies of the morning after
Paul Ryan must really have frightened the left, because they can’t just disagree with him, they must discredit him by saying liar, liar, pants on fire. Article after article has appeared purporting to check and expose his terrible lies.
Only trouble is, they’re misrepresenting (otherwise known as “lying”?) about his lies, including what Ryan actually said about the closing of the GM plant in Janesway. Ed Morrissey explains that Ryan clearly acknowledged in his speech that the plant was slated to close before Obama took office:
Ryan acknowledged that the plant had already been slated for shutdown in 2008. That was his point. People voted for him because they thought Obama represented hope to get the plant back in operation. In fact, that had been known since at least February 2008, when Obama came to Janesville to speak, and specifically addressed the plant closure in his remarks, delivered at the plant itself ”” and promised to keep it and other plants like it open “for the next hundred years.”
Read the whole thing. And also this.
It is clear that, for the most part, fact-checking by the media has become (or maybe it has long been?) an Orwellian proposition.
I don’t know whether this sort of attack works. Liberals are already firmly in Obama’s camp, and conservatives in Romney/Ryan’s, so it’s irrelevant to members of those groups. It’s those pesky Independents and moderates who cannot ever be predicted or understood—at least not by me—and they’re the ones who need to be reached.
My guess is that many of them are still not paying all that much attention, but what do I know? What does grab them politically is a puzzlement to me; how can anyone still be undecided?
Another night with ye olde GOP
8:11: I just turned on the TV, and John McCain is speaking. Remember him? He was the wrong man for the year 2008.
But one thing that occurs to me is that he still seems pretty healthy. Remember all the fuss about how old he was, and how he might not live to serve out his term? If he’s anything like his mother, he’s got at least 20 good years ahead of him (the lady’s 100 years old).
And by the way–Happy 76th Birthday, John! (Yes, it’s today.)
8:30: Now Pam Bondi and Sam Olens address the crowd, and they look and sound like they’re about to present an Academy Award at the Oscars.
10:27: I got busy with something else and missed the next few speakers (including Condi?). Now Paul Ryan steps up to the plate.
Slow start, but he’s really giving it to Obama now: “These past four years we have suffered no shortage of words in the White House. What’s missing is leadership in the White House.” And “The man assumed office almost four years ago ”“ isn’t it about time he assumed responsibility?” Ouch, that’s gotta hurt.
And this is a clear bid for the disaffected Obama youth vote:
College graduates should not have to live out their 20s in their childhood bedrooms, staring up at fading Obama posters and wondering when they can move out and get going with life.
I’ve said many times that I’m not really into speeches, but that one was stellar. Romney did well in picking Ryan. If I were Obama, I’d be feeling just a little bit shaky now—even if I were a narcissist.
Or maybe especially if I were a narcissist.
I turned to CNN, curious to see what they’d say about Ryan. Wolf Blitzer seems to be quite impressed. The CNN panel agreed (I missed some of their names); “a new Reagan,” “a jolt of optimistic adrenalin.” Even James Carville couldn’t find anything bad to say about Ryan. Hmmm.
Now I’m checking out MSNBC’s commentary, just because I’m a masochist (no, actually, it’s because I want to see what the attack on Ryan will be). Gee, the biggest criticism they have of Ryan is that he isn’t distancing himself enough from the fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush administration? Ryan isn’t conservative enough for them??
The Times repeats the old lies about the napalm photo
Remember back in June when it was the 40th anniversary of the “napalm” girl photo that so shockingly depicted some of the civilian casualties in the Vietnam War? I wrote this piece in PJ for the occasion, in an attempt to set the record straight for the zillionth time.
But the NY Times, although no doubt familiar with the truth, stubbornly resists it, as Professor Joseph Campbell and Instapundit report. Campbell writes:
It has taken more than three months, but the New York Times today published a sort-of correction of its erroneous description about the napalm attack in Vietnam in June 1972 that preceded the famous photograph of children terrified and wounded by the bombing.” Plus this: “[T]he phrasing ”” ”˜while the planes that carried out the attack were “American planes” in the sense that they were made in the United States, they were flown by the South Vietnamese Air Force, not American forces’ ”” makes it sound like a bunch of teenagers borrowing daddy’s car.”
And Glenn Reynolds adds:
The narrative ”” Americans evil baby-killers! ”” must be preserved. The self-esteem of an entire generation of Boomer journalists requires it.
Reynolds as correct that a great deal of this is ego-driven; it’s hard to issue a correction no matter how wrong one turns out to have been. But a great deal of it is also ideology-driven. After all, since it is an axiom that the Americans are evil baby-killers, what difference does accuracy make in the pursuit of that Higher Truth?
Nothing whatsoever new here. As I wrote in my PJ piece:
As familiar as the photo has become, the story behind it is less so. For example, if the introductory paragraph of this essay had read: “She was the nine-year-old girl who was burned by napalm dropped by American forces in South Vietnam,” how many readers would have caught the error?
In fact, it was the South Vietnamese who were doing the bombing, but the idea that Kim was burned at the hands of Americans persists. That is only one of several common misconceptions about the attack, because the incident has been widely misrepresented and misunderstood through errors of omission and commission.
The Times’ error is one of commission. And its retraction is a joke, albeit an unfunny one.
The Ann and Chris show
There were a lot of good speakers last night. I didn’t watch them all, but Artur Davis and Mia Love especially impressed me—Davis because he’s a changer, and Love because she showed that a demographic which usually goes Democratic (young black female) has a place in the Republican Party if attracted to its philosophy and principles. Hope she wins and goes to Congress, even if media outlets like MSNBC pretended she does not exist. To them, she doesn’t.
But last night it really was the Ann Romney and Chris Christie show. They were the ones who aroused the most curiosity, and they both delivered.
I’d seen Ann Romney speak before, so I was already familiar with how good she is: very. I was further impressed, as she stepped up to the podium last night, with how incredibly attractive and young she looked. Whoever did her hair and makeup hit it out of the park.
As did Ann herself. She exhibits an impressive combination of ease, grace, warmth, intensity, and sincerity. Her delivery is wonderful, too: clear and strong, never strident or shrill. The message was fairly simple: I love this guy, he’s never let me down, and he won’t let you down either.
What’s more, she even managed to touch on a subject of interest to me: his good deeds as a private citizen. Yesterday I expressed the wish that this information be placed before the public, but that it wouldn’t be easy to do it right:
It definitely would have to be done through surrogates, though, and the touch would have to be very delicate.
And that’s a good description of what Ann Romney did when she said:
Mitt doesn’t like to talk about how he has helped others because he sees it as a privilege, not a political talking point.
In one sentence she both mentioned it and de-politicized it as much as possible, while getting across the idea that it’s sincere rather than a strategic ploy. I hope others at the convention will go on to flesh out some of the details of what Mitt actually did; it’s pretty impressive.
Of course, none of this will ever earn any kudos from the left. I went to a few blogs of that persuasion last night just to see what commenters were saying, and sure enough it was the usual snipey nasty “she’s a privileged robot” stuff.
On to Christie, one of my favorite politicians (not an oxymoron). I thought his speech was stirring, although others criticized him for not being an attack dog throwing red meat to the Obama-detesting base. But that’s a feature, not a bug. After all, the goal is to appeal to independents and swing voters, and he did that in the very best way, by contrasting Republican principles and policies with Democratic ones, and doing it in the manner he’s master at: clear, concise, immediately understandable, powerful and yet conversational.
Cristie has what they used to call the common touch. Even his girth, so unusual for a politician today, conveys that impression, as does his accent, which speaks to me personally of home. Christie took the high road, and it was a stroke of genius for him to basically ignore Obama, which probably infuriated Obama even more than excoriating him would have.
Christie is a Republican of a certain type that’s rather rare: the urban, northeastern, tough-talking guy. The closest Republican I can think of to Christie is Giuliani, another Italian (Christie is only half) former prosecutor from the New York City area (Christie was born in Newark; close enough). And there’s another Italian-American politician from New York that he reminds me of, at least physically:
Christie is taller than La Guardia, it’s true—but then, who isn’t?
Some of my favorite Republicans…
…are speaking tonight.
Kelly Ayotte.
Chris Christie.
Ann Romney.
And a neo-Republican, Artur Davis. Love those changers!
[ADDENDUM: And how could I overlook Scott Walker?]
How girls pack a suitcase
True confessions: this is me.
You never know when you might need…:
On my last flight, my suitcase weighed exactly and precisely 50 pounds. Whew. And that doesn’t count the box of things I sent ahead of me.
Would Romney brag about his good deeds?
And should he?
Take a look. I’ve thought about this question before, and it’s quite a paradox. Here’s a guy the opposition is eager to paint as a rapacious and cruel capitalist exploiter, but who has been among the most generous of men with his time and his money.
But he’s also been mighty reticent about bragging on this stuff, so how best to get the message across to the American people? Somehow it would be highly embarrassing to have other people talk about him that way in his presence, so it probably would be better to do some of it when he’s not around. It definitely would have to be done through surrogates, though, and the touch would have to be very delicate.
What do (married) women want?
Apparently not Obama.
For all the furor about how Obama has the female vote, it turns out that women are hardly monolithic on that score, and that there’s a big divide between the married and the un.
First, let’s look at men and women in general:
Obama-Romney (among registered voters)
Men: 43-51
Women: 49-43
Big difference, right? Yes. But let’s break it down further (remember, the first figure is support for Obama):
Married men: 35-59
Unmarried men: 51-41Married women: 40-55
Unmarried women: 57-32
So although women definitely support Obama more often than men do, among married women Romney is the leader by a mile. Unmarried people—both men and women—prefer Obama, and married ones of both sexes do not.
Is it actually marriage that makes the difference, or something else? If you look at the poll you can see that there are other factors that might account for at least some of it. For example, Obama leads among younger people (more likely to be unmarried), and his advantage is super-strong among blacks (who have a lower marriage rate). And only people whose incomes are below 50K support Obama; those above are for Romney. Younger people are less likely to make that much money, and more likely to be unmarried as well.
You better believe that Obama and the Democrats are aware of those statistics, as well as these:
A new report from the Pew Research Center analyzing Census Bureau data found that only 51 percent of Americans 18 and over were married in 2010, compared with 72 percent in 1960. Among Hispanics and African-Americans, the decline is even more steep.
But want to hear a shocking statistic? Obama is doing worse among unmarried women than John Kerry did.
So, are you…
…going to watch the convention?
I plan to look at some of it. My old problem with auditory learning and political speeches will almost undoubtedly kick in, though:
…[T]he prepared speech has always been an enormous bore to me…Political speeches are the worst of the worst. This is true whether it’s a candidate I like or one I dislike. Unless the orator is Churchill, in a few minutes I’m out. My concentration is stellar for any written matter, and that’s the way I prefer to get my information.
But I’ll try. I’m especially curious this year as to how the Republican candidates will present themselves, and whether it will be enough to counter the inevitable onslaught from the media.
How many people watch these things any more? I’m old enough to remember (at least vaguely) when the original purpose of the conventions—the nomination of the party’s candidate for president—was not a completely foregone conclusion long before the event, and when there was still some wheeling and dealing to be had. Now it’s just a festival of self- and party-promotion, probably far more important for a challenger like Romney than an incumbent like Obama. After all, although we may still argue about Obama’s formative years and disagree about his future plans, the blank screen has been filled in with a three and a half year record of accomplishment or lack thereof.
One of the reasons I like to watch at least part of each convention is to see for myself. Even back when I was much less politically inclined, I wasn’t one to merely trust the reports of others; I always preferred to make my own judgments, if I could bear to watch the proceedings.
But my guess is that a lot of people would rather listen to someone else’s far more entertaining reaction to the conventions or speeches or interviews (Jon Stewart, anyone?) than to put themselves through the boredom and decide for themselves. That’s how Saturday Night Live became the authority on Sarah Palin’s orientation towards Russia. After all, it’s so much more fun to think the doofus actually said she could see Russia from her house than to pay attention to her actual words.*
[* What Palin actually said in an interview was that you can see Russia from land in Alaska; specifically, “an island in Alaska,” not from her house.
Which unsurprisingly turns out to be correct:
In the middle of the Bering Strait are two small, sparsely populated islands: Big Diomede, which sits in Russian territory, and Little Diomede, which is part of the United States. At their closest, these two islands are a little less than two and a half miles apart, which means that, on a clear day, you can definitely see one from the other…Between mid-December and mid-June, when the water between the two islands freezes, an intrepid explorer can just walk from one to the other…You can also see Russia from other points in Alaska.]
[NOTE: Speaking of misconceptions, this article by Michael Ramirez in Investors Business Daily about how the media has ignored Obama’s myriad gaffes in order to focus on slip-ups by Republicans features the true history of the much-maligned Dan Quayle’s “potatoe” gaffe, in case you’re not aware of what was behind that one.]
You can talk about the Republican Convention…
…here.
Still think…
…Romney’s not hard-hitting enough? Check this out:
Mitt Romney calls campaign attacks by President Obama and his allies “vituperative” and “vicious” and “absurd” and “sad.” Also: Effective.
“I do think that the president’s campaign of personal vilification and demonization probably draws some people away from me,” Romney says when asked why he’s no better than tied against a vulnerable incumbent…
“There are plenty of weaknesses that I have, and I acknowledge that,” Romney says. “But the attacks that have come have been so misguided, have been so far off target, have been so dishonest, that they surprised me. I thought they might go after me on things that were accurate that I’ve done wrong, instead of absurd things.”…
“Isn’t it sad? Isn’t it sad that the focus of the president’s campaign, having been president for four years, is to try and attack the personality of the person he’s running against as opposed to standing up for his record and his plan for the future? But because his record is so weak and because his plan forward is a continuation of what he’s done in the past, the only thing he can do is attack me.”
By the way, what were those legitimate vulnerabilities on which he had expected attacks?
“Not going to tell you,” he says, chuckling. “Sorry.”
And man, I sure hope this is true:
How will the next 10 weeks be different from what’s gone before?
“It will be more intense,” [Romney] says, “and I will make no mistakes.” Then he laughs.
You know, at the beginning this campaign seemed endless. But all of a sudden it feels like it’s going very fast. I think that, unlike many other candidates, Romney becomes more appealing with more exposure. I hope he doesn’t run out of time for the American people to get to know him instead of the caricature of him that the Obama campaign has tried to paint.
I would say “I’m getting nervous,” but that’s not true. I’ve been nervous from the start, and I remain so.