The Ann and Chris show

The New Neo Posted on by

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?

Would Romney brag about his good deeds?

The New Neo Posted on by

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?

The New Neo Posted on by

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: 51-41

Married 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…

The New Neo Posted on by

…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.]

Still think…

The New Neo Posted on by

…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.

Body wash or soap?

The New Neo Posted on by

That’s the burning question of the day

And here I hadn’t even known there was a choice. The only place I’d ever encountered body wash was in the locker room of a gym I used to attend years ago. The showers at that place were thoughtfully provided with dispensers of the stuff, which I assumed were there for people who’d simply forgotten to bring their own soap with them.

Dummy me. Little did I know that I was standing on the threshold of a cutting-edge technology that would revolutionize the showering industry.

Good old soap has always been good enough for me. I deal with the potential mushiness factor by keeping my soap elevated on a neat little gizmo like this, a wonderful product you can buy for about 99 cents or less, one of the most fabulous bargains modern life offers:

Soap is effective. Soap is much cheaper than body wash. Soap has always been a product that didn’t seem to need perfecting. Who knew that a host of people would some day find it icky and unsanitary, as some of the commenters on the soap vs. body wash article seem to? It reminds me of that claptrap about needing to sterilize one’s toothbrush to prevent getting sick from it. Not true.

[NOTE: I don’t share my soap with those near and dear. But it turns out that even doing that isn’t really going to harm anyone]

Remember South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford?

The New Neo Posted on by

I guess his affair had some staying power after all, because Sanford and his Argentine girlfriend are now engaged to be married.

I don’t think most people would have bet on that outcome back in the summer of 2009 when Sanford’s bizarre disappearance, strangely inadequate excuses, and rambling press conference revealed his affair, broke up his marriage, and ended his promising political career. A trifecta.

If things had gone differently, Sanford might even have been a candidate for president in 2012. As it is, he’s just a historical footnote, albeit perhaps a happy one at this point—although I wonder whether his ex-wife and four children are equally overjoyed.

Anderson Cooper actually seems annoyed by Wasserman Schultz’s lies

The New Neo Posted on by

Anderson Cooper jumps on the media truth squad, at least for this one exchange. Note that, although something seems to really get his goat about Wasserman Schultz’s misquoting of the LA Times, as well as her refusal to admit she’s misquoting it even when that fact is rubbed in her face—he remains careful not to call her a liar.

He’s treating her with remarkable deference while at the same time haranguing her. It’s an odd combination:

Note also that Wasserman Schultz hardly seems at all perturbed. She could do this sort of thing in her sleep (and probably does). Two and two equals five, after all, if it’s in the service of the Party.

The funniest thing is her line towards the end of the clip, when she says without the slightest awareness of the irony involved, “The main thrust of the information we’re trying to convey is that Mitt Romney is disingenuous…”

The saddest thing is that tons of voters will be taken in by her lies—and that she may even help gain Obama the election. And that Anderson Cooper and most of his MSM colleagues will probably waste no time in getting back to carrying Obama’s water, and nodding when Wasserman Schultz offers whatever outrageous assertion is next on her agenda.

Or maybe the saddest thing is when Wasserman Schultz says, “It doesn’t matter.”

[NOTE: And by the way, Cooper fails to call Wasserman Schultz on her distortion of the Republican platform on abortion in cases of rape (it never even mentions it). Full text of the platform wording on the subject is here.]