Political Advertising 11
I wish they still made ads like this one for Gerald Ford in 1976. Check out the jaunty music and the fab 70s kitsch of it all. Not a bad message either.
World
Monday
Saturday
Political Advertising 10
The contrast between this jaunty, jolly ad and what we know of Richard Nixon’s character and temperament is quite striking. “Nixon Now”, from 1972, is mesmerising. Amazing stuff.
Stanislav Petrov Day
The Yorkshire Ranter explains why this matters and why we should all be grateful to this Soviet Air Force colonel.
Friday
Political Advertising 9
No-one ever accused LBJ of being a soft touch. This ad, “Confessions of a Republican” from 1964 is brutal. And brilliant. Four hideous minutes for Barry Goldwater. Yet it still seems almost quanit, viewed from the perspective of 2008. Of course, it also assumes the voters have an attention span of more than 12 seconds. I love the cigarette at the end too…
Meanwhile, Sarah Palin is Susan Alexander…
Amusing comment left on this post that dared to observe that Sarah Palin’s interview with Katie Couric was less than wholly impressive: what do you know. english marxist hates palin. she did better than biden. Well, it’s a point of view. What’s more interesting is the question why Palin has been so poor. The easy answer, of course, is that she’s just not up to it and certainly that’s the obvious, immediate impression one gets from her Couric interview. So much so, in fact, that one can’t help but feel rather sorry for her. Yet my sense is that, while she’s clearly no foreign policy maven, she’s dramatically under-performed the
Alan Keyes on Obama and McCain
Toby Harnden reminds us that the only man to have debated both Obama and McCain is Mr Loony Tunes himself, Alan Keyes. So what does he think? So what does he think of their debating skills? “Both of them, I confess, I found not very impressive as people in debates,” he told me. “If by eloquence we mean the force of truth, then neither of these guys is good at debate. “Both of them represent and take stands both about themselves and about the country that have no truth in them. Obama rejects the fundamental truth the country was founded on that we are all created equal and endowed by
Thursday
Palin on Afghanistan
So, yeah, keeping Sarah Palin away from the press isn’t too stupid a strategy. The second half of her interview with Katie Couric airs tonight. Alas, it’s on foreign policy and it’s not, I think, likely to be pretty. Here, for instance, is Palin talking about Afghanistan: Katie Couric: Why is it much more challenging there? Can you explain that? Sarah Palin: The logistics that we are already suggesting here, not having enough troops in the area right now. The… things like the terrain even in Afghanistan and that border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, where, you know, we believe that– Bin Laden is– is hiding out right now and… and
Wednesday
Caption Contest!
Whatever one might say about Sarah Palin, this photograph is disturbing on many, many levels… And, for the people who pay attention to these things, it’s a blunder too. Because, you know, seeing Sarah Palin perched on a sofa chattering away with Henry Kissinger emphasises rather than reduces the validity of concerns about her experience and knowledge. Daft. [Plundered shamelessly from Mike Crowley]
The Fall of the Yankees
Ross Douthat has a fine post – from a Red Sox perspective, no less – on the decline and fall of the New York Yankees. For the first time in what seems like a generation the Pinstripers won’t be playing in the post-season. Buster Olney explains why in terms of trades and drafts here. Messrs Douthat and Olney make some very pertinent points. But, as I dare to suggest, in a piece I wrote for the New Republic last year, can it really be a coincidence that the age of Bush has coincided with eight years of Yankee failure (ie, no world Series triumphs)? I think not. The Bush administration’s
McCain Behind the Eight Ball
John McCain wants to suspend campaigning until Congress has sorted out how to bailout Wall Street. What does this mean? Simple: he’s losing and he knows he is.
Tuesday
Political Advertising 6
With ads like these, how did Adlai Stevenson lose to Eisenhower in 1952? Marvellous stuff.
A shameless but plucky effort
Cheesy, vacuous – and occasionally brilliant, this was indeed the speech of Gordon Brown’s life. I agree with Fraser and James that this was the product of desperation, its tactics a measure of how bad things have got and how far the PM is willing to go to cling to power. From the appearance of Sarah Brown, Michelle Obama-style, to the implicit dig at Cameron for parading his children, to the eschewing of statistics – ‘that’s not just a number’ – from the driest political statistician of them all, to the hokey soundbite ‘one hope at a time’, this was pure, shameless, vintage political theatre. Cynical as hell, but splendid,
Monday
Political Advertising 5
How much experience does a candidate need to have? What qualifies as experience anyway? According to this JFK ad, Nixon’s years as Vice-President didn’t count as qualifying experience…
Sunday
Political Advertising 4
From 1980. Jimmy Carter: Christianist! (OK, there is a reference to the seperation of church and state, but still…)
Saturday
IQ2 debate — Paths to Peace: proposals to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
In at the deep end. That’s how Intelligence Squared likes to kick off, and the first debate of the new season plunged straight into the perilous waters of the Israel–Palestine conflict. David Lindley, the chair, asked each speaker to present ideas for a workable peace. Dan Gillerman, a former Israeli ambassador to the UN, opened on a note of gloomy optimism. There were dark signs on the horizon, yet he was encouraged because ‘never have so many parties been so desperate for a settlement’. Tehran is the key problem. And if we doubted his word, ‘just listen to Ahmadinejad denying the Holocaust while planning the next one’. He deplored the
Thursday
Political Advertising 2
Richard Nixon in 1968: “Decisions”.
Wednesday
Outsourcing Blogging.
Christ. The US government seems to have, more or less, bought AIG. Like most bloggers/journalists I don’t for a second pretend to understand these matters. But Megan McArdle doesn’t merely pretend to know something about all this, she actually does. Accordingly, I recommend you read her blog for a smart, savvy, properly sceptical take on matters.
Andrew Sullivan and Sarah Palin.
Let me make something very clear: I like, admire and respect Andrew Sullivan and his writing. I can’t remember when I first started reading his blog, but I think it must have been in early 2001. Certainly before 9/11. Since then I suspect I must have read more words written by Andrew than by any other journalist or blogger. Before his blog moved to Time and, subsequently, The Atlantic, I regularly contributed to his bi-annual pledge drives. I’d recommend his book, The Conservative Soul to anyone interested in the subject. Heck, he’s often been kind enough to link to this blog and, indeed, I once helped fill-in for him while
Tuesday
Life in a Green Suit
Visiting friends or family with small children? Stuck for a present (toy drums and trumpets are not, I believe, generally considered thoughtful)? Well, my default gift is a collection of Jean de Brunhoff’s wonderful Babar books. You cannot, in my view, and that of most tiny children, go wrong with Babar. So, amidst all the sturm und drang on Wall St and the hurly-burly of the American presidential campaign, it was a relief to be able to turn to Adam Gopnik’s lovely essay on Babar in this week’s edition of the New Yorker. It’s a fine, perceptive piece, not just on Babar, but on French culture, colonialism, the bourgeoisie and
Elitist Greens
Matt Yglesias reconsiders his position on arugula. Of course, in Britain we call “arugula” “rocket” – a much more homely, substantial, salt-of-the-earth kind of name, you will agree. A ploughman might have rocket in his sandwich, he’d never have “arugula” would he? Names matter! I can’t recall for certain, but I’m pretty sure arugula used to be called rocket in the United States too, but that the name was changed because someone – growers? Supermarkets? – wanted a poncier, more exotic, upscale name for the stuff. If Obama loses in Novemeber this shift will doubtless be seen by historians as a key moment in American political history…