Playing the age card against McCain

The New Neo Posted on by

As Michael Barone points out, the Republican race is coalescing around candidate McCain after an early period of chaos, while the Democratic race is still up for grabs after an early period of seeming clarity.

Nevertheless, McCain remains a polarizing figure for Republicans. Not conservative enough on immigration, taxes, global warming, you name it.

But consider the Democratic alternatives. As McCain’s mother said recently, Republicans should “hold their noses” and vote for him anyway.

If McCain becomes the nominee—which I predict will happen—it might become a very important thing that McCain’s mother is around to say anything. That’s because I also predict that, whoever the Democratic candidate will be, one campaign focus is almost certain to be McCain’s advanced age. Continue reading →

French sales: la difference

The New Neo Posted on by

The LA Times describes a French shopping phenomenon that seems positively archaic: retail stores only have sales twice a year.

In the US, land of the perpetual discount, this may seem odd indeed. Even in France, there is opposition; Sarkozy, for example, is trying to broaden the rules to allow more freedom in this respect in hopes of giving the stagnant economy an extra boost.

“Broaden the rules?” you may ask. “What rules?”

It’s the law that French sales are limited to two times a year, January and June or July. And all stores must have them at the same time. This makes competition fair, according to French thinking (yes, the French are different from you and me).

But France is not alone. Continue reading →

The art of politics

The New Neo Posted on by

Gerard Vanderleun has called our attention to a campaign poster of Obama, created by graphic artist Shepard Fairey in his characteristic retro-Soviet style:

It’s really got it all, hasn’t it? The iconic angle of the fearless idealized leader as seen from slightly below — the supplicant’s viewpoint. The soulful gaze directed slightly up and slightly to the his left as if seeing farther and deeper into the future than mere mortals. The punching up of the red, white and blue — a color scheme no candidate can afford to do without. Then finally the large single word that somehow assures and inspires at the same time; the word that motivates as well as palliates: PROGRESS.

And indeed it does have it all, just as described:

obama.jpg

But since I’ve been immersing myself lately in images of the 60s, I noticed another thing it’s got: a distinct resemblance to JFK.

The graphic seems to stretch and widen Obama’s face in a way that enhances any likeness he might have to the late President, thus subliminally underscoring the recent endorsements of Kennedy brother Ted and daughter Caroline.

Unless I’ve become unhinged from watching too many You Tube videos of JFK, perhaps you can see what I’m talking about:

kennedy.jpg

Presidential style: policy, press, and the pull of personality

The New Neo Posted on by

Some people have said that if the Iraq War had been instituted by a Democratic administration, the Democrats would have remained behind it despite the setbacks encountered.

If history is any guide, that’s a false assumption. Once again, the history that guides us is that of Vietnam.

The first act of our most intense involvement in Vietnam—the sending of US advisers and then the wholesale commitment of US combat troops—was planned and executed by two successive Democratic administrations, Kennedy and Johnson. And yet the press and Congress, and then the American people (scroll down for the year-by-year Gallup Poll chart of public opinion on Vietnam), turned against that endeavor, most particularly in 1968 after Tet.

Not only was a Democratic President in office until January of 1969, but the Congress was heavily Democratic all those years (see this for the composition of the House and this for the Senate). And when I say heavily, I mean heavily.

It was a hugely Democratic Congress and MSM that turned on the war even during the years when Democrats were completely in charge of the show. I have a theory about what happened—although, like most theories about history and “what might have been,” it can never be tested. I believe it had at least partly to do with the fact that Lyndon Johnson was never a popular President. Continue reading →

The dropouts: Giuliani and Edwards

The New Neo Posted on by

Edwards is out of the race, with Giuliani to follow.

There’s no dearth of analysts to explain why, so I’ll be brief in my own offering:

Giuliani never really wanted it all that much, and he didn’t know how to translate his 9/11 appeal into a more generalized appeal.

Edwards wanted it way too much, and he simply oozed with lack of appeal.

Watch out for those women scorned, Ted

The New Neo Posted on by

The computer screen practically sizzles with the scorching rage of the women of NOW, reacting to Ted Kennedy’s endorsement of Obama, the unkindest cut of all:

“Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal. Senator Kennedy’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard. Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him, hushed the fact that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA…

And now the greatest betrayal! We are repaid with his abandonment! He’s picked the new guy over us. He’s joined the list of progressive white men who can’t or won’t handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton…

How can the women of NOW be so tone-deaf as to what their statement sounds like? There’s no need to satirize this one; it creates its own satire. The tone fits the worst cliches of the ramaging woman gone hormonally ballistic, the avenging Fury breathing fire at the Man Who Done Her Wrong.

Why so much rage? Continue reading →

Rhetoric ain’t what it used to be

The New Neo Posted on by

Bush’s State of the Union message last night was the usual Rorschach test that people tend to view according to their previous conceptions of Bush and his policies. His basic message: Iraq’s doing relatively well, we need to cut pork.

As far as the speech itself went—well, President Bush is hardly known for his oratory. But I can’t think of anyone lately, with the possible exception of Tony Blair, who is.

Reagan had the delivery and the spirit, and some fine turns of phrase, but even he was hardly Churchill or Lincoln. But then again, who could be? Styles have changed, and the idea of “statesman” has morphed into the far more plebian “politician.” Continue reading →

Writing the war

The New Neo Posted on by

I’m still reading Lewis Sorley’s A Better War, about the second half of our involvement in Vietnam.

It’s slow going, for many reasons. One of them is that it’s painful to read it and think what might have been.

Not what inevitably would have been—we can’t rewrite history and know what would have happened had public opinion in the US not turned so heavily against the war. But Sorley’s account of Creighton Abrams’s implementation of a totally different—and far more successful—policy than that of his predecessor, William Westmoreland, convinces this reader that there was a very good chance of South Vietnam having staved off the North’s incursion if we had kept up our financial aid during the mid-70s.

In this respect, as I’ve written here, Abrams and his policies are somewhat parallel to General Petraeus and the surge. Continue reading →

Leadership, Bush: not an oxymoron

The New Neo Posted on by

It’s common knowledge that President Bush’s approval ratings still hover somewhere in the 30th percentile, where they’ve lingered for the last two years, with only short forays into the 40s.

One would think this proves that Bush is a lousy leader. But then again, leadership is not synonymous with popularity. although there can certainly be overlap.

Whatever leadership Bush may or may not exhibit, it is agreed that he is extremely flawed in the all-important matter of communicating with the public. It’s also common knowledge that many people think of Bush as dumb, and almost all agree he is inarticulate.

But glibness and intelligence are not synonymous either—although, once again, there is often overlap. The idea of Bush as stupid extends to the notion that he is some sort of puppet of handlers such as Rove or Cheney, who are the evil intelligences behind the moronic Bush.

The idea that Bush could actually study an issue in depth and make a courageous and informed decision is laughable to people who ascribe to these latter notions, and I doubt anything they could read or learn about Bush would change that opinion. Continue reading →

Liars and the lying liars who tell them

The New Neo Posted on by

It’s not new information. But this seems to come straight from the horse’s (Saddam’s) mouth and, if true, ought to obliterate the “Bush lied about WMDs” meme.

Yeah, right. Dream on, you say.

To recap: if Saddam took steps to make the world believe he had WMDs even though he did not, and in fact did retain the ability and intent to make them as soon as sanctions were to be removed (as even the much-misunderstood Duelfer report made clear), then the WMD justification for the war holds even if Saddam possessed no actual WMDs. Continue reading →

The fickle political public

The New Neo Posted on by

Have you noticed how unpopular Bill Clinton has become of late, even with Democrats who formerly were charmed by him? Michael Weiss has.

What’s going on? Most Republicans always hated him, and I must confess I was never especially fond of him. But most Democrats had been pretty loyal till recently, when Bill has planted his foot firmly in his own mouth a few times too often while campaigning on behalf of his wife.

Perhaps he’s such a narcissist that he only warms up to the stump when he’s shilling for himself. Continue reading →