The Paul Ryan fact-checking continues apace, with the intrepid journalists at The New Yorker on the case.
Aren’t you glad we’re getting to the bottom of all of this?
Okay, so how do we…
…make this go viral?
Note particularly this moment. It’s not as personal and heartwarming as some of the other stuff, but it’s certainly relevant to how Romney would be likely to perform as president:
Eastwood’s empty chair
Barack Obama has often been called an empty suit, but last night Clint Eastwood visualized him as an empty chair.
A lot of people (including me) thought Eastwood would be giving a more conventional speech. But instead he came up with a zany improv that left a lot of people scratching their heads:
Sort of funny, sort of strange, if you ask me.
But not unfamiliar. Anyone who’s had any experience with Gestalt therapy would probably recognize the famous empty chair technique pioneered by Fritz Perls:
When the client expresses a conflict with another person, through this technique, the client is directed to talk to that another person who is imagined to be sitting in an empty chair beside or across the client. This helps the client to experience and understand the feeling more fully. Thus, it stimulates your thinking, highlighting your emotions and attitudes. For example, the therapist may say, “Imagine your father in this chair (about 3 feet away), see him vividly, and, now, talk to him about how you felt when he was unfaithful to your mother.”…The key is a long, detailed, emotional interaction–a conversation. You should shift back and forth between chairs as you also speak for the person-trait-object in the other chair. This “conversation” clarifies your feelings and reactions to the other person and may increase your understanding of the other person.
Obama doesn’t strike me as the sort of man who can take a joke—about himself. That’s why ridicule can be a most potent weapon.
Getting to know Romney the do-gooder
Of all the things I saw at the convention, the most potentially powerful was the series of presentations about Romney’s good deeds. It was both curious and moving, and unprecedented (at least in my memory) for an introduction to a presidential candidate at a convention.
Byron York describes it as leaving many viewers in tears, and I don’t doubt it. I already knew these stories about Romney—they’ve long been available to anyone interested in doing a little bit of research on the man—so they didn’t surprise me, although I was pleased to see the campaign was finally trying to get them to the attention of the American public.
I wonder, though, how many people saw it? How many people even watch the conventions, and how many were viewing that particular part? Even Fox cut away for some of it.
We’re used to sob stories about politicians, meant to tug at the heartstrings, both to laud politicians and to attack them. But usually they are about policies the politicians have promoted or blocked: Romney was responsible for the death of my wife when we lost our insurance as a result of Bain; Obamacare meant I got health insurance despite my pre-existing condition. That sort of thing is standard. But these stories about Romney’s extraordinary kindness and caring were not the usual tales about how his policies have helped people; they were personal, and specifically religious in nature, because they described hands-on (in some cases, literally) acts Romney performed in the service of his Mormon faith and his position as a Mormon lay minister.
I have never seen a politician use that sort of approach before. Perhaps it’s because few if any politicians have a record like that to point to. Perhaps it’s also because Romney may have needed to point it out more than most would have, because of his naturally cool demeanor, and because the campaign against him has relied so far almost entirely on character assassination.
Whatever the reasons, the degree to which Romney has been a practitioner of personal kindness and good works is extraordinary. Whether he wins the election or not, it’s clear that Romney is a very unusual human being, with a combination of brains, hard-nosed business sense and competitiveness, and personal kindness that goes way beyond anything most people consider necessary or even possible. For a politician, this is so unusual as to be unique.
So far, the Obama campaign’s “narrative” about Romney has been rather simple: out of touch, flip-flopping, women-despising, rapacious exploitative capitalist (pig, although they don’t say it). But the funny thing about lies is that all it takes to refute them is the truth, and there’s plenty of refutation available in the true story of Romney’s life. If people could learn those things, Obama’s Romney narrative would be blown out of the water.
But will people be allowed to learn them? If the stories had been about Obama, they already would have been hyped to the skies. But of course that’s not the way the MSM rolls for Romney.
There’s another thing about these tales. They seem almost too good to be true—very corny, very touching. In our cynical and ironic age they are almost unbelievable, like some sort of parody. What a square, goody-two-shoes—although the kind of square you might want to have around in a crisis.
Is any of this relevant to the tasks involved in being president? I’m not at all sure. But all of it is highly impressive—and most definitely relevant to the question of what sort of person Romney is, and whether he cares about people, which has become an issue in the campaign.
People keep saying about Romney, “the more I know of him the more I like him.” Not just on this blog, but in comments all over the internet. It strikes me that Obama is just the opposite—the more people know of him the more they dislike him.
ADDENDUM: Just in case you didn’t see the tributes, here they are:
ADDENDUM II: I hadn’t seen this one before, but it’s golden, and I think would be especially appealing to those liberals who might be on the fence about whom to vote for. The speaker’s sincerity shines through [Hat tip: commenter “jeanneb”):
Convention night 3
Here’s an open thread to talk about tonight’s doings. I may update from time to time.
11:49: Watched Romney’s speech, which did everything it needed to do. The proof is that afterward, when I tuned to MSNBC for the critique, they really didn’t have too much bad to say about it—at least for the 10 minutes or so I listened.
So, is it really going to be…
Talk about tough acts to follow! But as Roger Simon says:
Has Mitt Romney been upstaged on his big night?
Well, sure, but so what?
Romney seems almost an afterthought, the guy behind the scenes who helped the whole thing come together. He’s pretty good at picking ’em, though (and I’m not talking about Clint Eastwood), isn’t he? And isn’t that a major part of a president’s task?
[ADDENDUM: Clint Eastwood is 82???]
Could there be a cure…
…for malaria?
Perhaps; this sounds very promising.
Malaria is still an enormous scourge in Africa, killing millions—especially children—and debilitating many others:
According to the World malaria report 2011, there were about 216 million cases of malaria (with an uncertainty range of 149 million to 274 million) and an estimated 655 000 deaths in 2010 (with an uncertainty range of 537 000 to 907 000). Malaria mortality rates have fallen by more than 25% globally since 2000, and by 33% in the WHO African Region. Most deaths occur among children living in Africa where a child dies every minute from malaria.
I wrote about the issues involved, including the use and/or banning of DDT, back in February of 2009:
In 2006 WHO lifted its ban on the insecticide, and many believe the substance’s adverse environmental and health effects have been greatly exaggerated. For example, South Africa found that it was a very effective tool in the anti-malaria arsenal, with no seeming ill effects. And, as even this environmental group observes as it reluctantly agrees that wider use of DDT would be a good thing, “we believe that the benefits derived from eliminating malaria through the use of DDT far outweigh any dangers.”
If this single-dose cure pans out, the DDT controversy could become irrelevant. It’s a big “if,” though; so far there have only been animal trials.
[Hat tip: Instapundit.]
Ryan’s appeal
One of the many things that impressed me last night was the tear in Scott Walker’s eye while Ryan was speaking.
That teardrop resonated with the commentary on blogs that are usually so critical and cynical. Simply put, a lot of people on the right got all choked up.
As for me—I don’t much like speeches ordinarily, but this one certainly held my attention, and I was moved by it in a way I’m not usually, although not to tears.
What made it different? I could use a cheap word like “charisma,” but that really is just a shorthand for something inexplicable. I think Ryan’s appeal is greater than charisma. He’s something unique in political life right now, a person who seems sincere. Not just fake-sincere, but honestly sincere (as Conrad Birdie might say). And also passionate, and able to convey that intensity along cool smarts. Both hot and cold, in other words.
And of course good-looking doesn’t hurt. But good-looking wouldn’t matter much if the other factors weren’t there.
Last night Ryan wielded a stiletto, or perhaps a hammer, on Obama and the left. He did it with brains, a smile, and an earnest do-good quality that would melt the heart of any mother, grandparent, father (or girlfriend). As in that recent Onion parody (“Do you get chills just thinking about how strong my appeal actually is?”), the left recognizes all of this, and will set out to destroy him, immediately.
Ugh
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.