8 posts tagged “conservative”

With any election campaign, and now being involved as a political candidate myself for the New Zealand Parliament, my observations stem from the point of view of ‘Would I do this?’
   For example, I wouldn’t have tried making fun of Sen. Barack Obama for wearing traditional African costume, as Sen. Clinton’s campaign did, using it as a tactic of painting him as an outsider. (And I said so at the time.)
   I did, meanwhile, have a field day over Sen. Clinton’s sniper-fire gag, or the time she called the still-governing Helen Clark as the ‘former prime minister of New Zealand’. I believe she opened herself up for those.
   At the end of the day, I want to see an even playing field, and I’ll do the little things that I know something about.
   And I thought today about Gov. Sarah Palin’s ‘bridge to nowhere’ remark.
   She said, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,’ to the construction of a bridge to a community of 50 in Alaska.
   Critics say that she was for the bridge before she was against it—something pointed out by Charlie Gibson in the ABC News interview.
   As far as I can gather, Gov. Palin and her Alaskan Congress would try to apply to Washington for a share of infrastructure projects, which, from what I can gather in western politics, is normal.
   I read about something similar in John Major’s autobiography, recalling his time as Chancellor of the Exchequer, with each government department trying to get a cut of the budget.
   So securing a share of the cake is business as usual in most democracies.
   When Congress (Washington, not Juneau) requested that Alaska itself pay for the bridge, Gov. Palin said, ‘No way.’
   Maybe I am being totally stupid but I can’t see what she has done wrong.
   Folks, I don’t support a lot of Sarah Palin’s ideas, not least her environmental stance, and as I have pointed out, her English seems to be below par for a woman holding a journalism degree and with broadcasting experience.
   I am for the Second Amendment, personally speaking. I like how she reduced her mayoral pay in Wassila and how she sold the gubernatorial jet which her predecessor had bought, against the will of his congress.
   She could be a populist. So is Sen. Obama.
   But on this “bridge to nowhere” issue, I thought about it this way.
   I get free samples of various products here that I give out to our team members. They are happy to take them. But if I were to ask them to pay for them, they’ll say, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,’ on most. They defend their own patch, as Gov. Palin defended hers.
   Critics say that Gov. Palin maybe should have said, ‘I said, “Thanks,” then “No thanks,” on that bridge to nowhere.’ But I think it was a waste of time for Gibson to even go there.
   There’s plenty of other stuff to attack the Governor on, just as there’s plenty of other stuff to attack Sen. Joseph Biden on. Americans tire of the politicking in the news not because they are disinterested in who gets to the White House, but because the media are so happy to sway the issue to things everyday people could not care less about.

This is no surprise given the promotions that Sen. Obama has been getting in the media: ‘Obama elicits more excitement than McCain’, according to USA Today.
   I want to be the voice of reason but 21 years in communications tell me that this is important. If your brand, personal or organizational, elicits excitement among its constituents, then you have a greater chance of mobilizing those people when you need them.
   Even when it comes to politics, to get messages across to voters, one has to resort to the tried and trusted techniques of branding and marketing.
   There are few in the present generations who will, as many bloggers do, investigate someone’s voting record or dig deeply into their histories. It would be nice to say that presidents are not elected based on how much excitement they can generate. Or that we should place greater emphasis on other qualities like honour and sincerity.
   While some might point to exceptions, such as the Tory victory in the UK of 1992, I beg to differ. That campaign was hard fought by the Conservatives and depended on party unity—which was sorely lacking in 1997 when Tony Blair was elected. The National victory in New Zealand of 1990 was a result of the cry for change and the belief that Labour was leaderless.
   And the cry for change is such a powerful message in politics, because politicians understand our nature: even the vaguest change is better than the strongest, best defined policies if a party has been in power for too long.
   Labour in the UK in 1997, National in New Zealand in 1990, Labour in New Zealand in 1999, Clinton in 1992—all these are examples of that message. And that, too, “excites”.
   Sen. McCain should not pursue an excitement route himself, but he should capitalize on mistakes that the Obama campaign is making with greater regularity. The New Yorker gaffe—where Sen. Obama felt the need to comment rather than appear presidential and above satire—was an opportunity missed. Meanwhile, I wonder if people appreciate the maverick, go-it-alone style of John McCain, which plays well in the Senate, but could be symptomatic of future Cabinet divisiveness under his administration.
   A winner is by no means clear, and a week remains a long time in politics. Months, as Sen. Clinton will attest as she went from dead cert to second-best, are an eternity.

[Cross-posted] This has been official for a while (or so I think—not that I ever heard what the Electoral Commission thought, but I did see it on its website). However, I wanted the party to approve the news first before sharing it with you all. The following is the overseas release which was rewritten from the one sent to domestic newsmedia. One that includes a mention of the Bush–Cheney campaign of 2004 was sent to US media.

JY&A Consulting revamps logo for New Zealand’s Alliance Party

Wellington, May 9 (JY&A Media) New Zealand political party, the Alliance, is looking more modern and relevant, thanks to its new logo by JY&A Consulting (http://jya.net/consulting).
   Devised by JY&A Consulting’s Jack Yan, the new logo signifies a new beginning for the democratic socialist political party.
   Mr Yan says that he has been a keen observer of general elections in the UK, US and New Zealand since the 1980s and that played a part in his team’s design.
   He says the Conservatives in 1983, Labour in the UK in 1997 and 2002 and Labour in New Zealand in 1999 and 2003 had certain commonalties in their campaigns, centring around typography.
   He also said that in those years, the party’s name was important, not the symbol—hence the traditional Labour rose was not present on that party’s election materials in 1997 and 2002.
   By abandoning the old A symbol of the Alliance and concentrating on the word, Mr Yan says that the party looks more professional and ready.
   The Alliance has contested every General Election in New Zealand since 1993. However, due to party changes it is trying to rebuild itself for the country’s General Election later this year.
   ‘We have two major parties in New Zealand that vote pretty much the same on all issues,’ says Mr Yan, ‘and minor parties that get ignored because of a lack of visibility. I wanted to change that. Why should minor parties be laboured with second-rate brands?’
   The logo is based around the Frutiger typeface and its lettering is predominantly in red, with a red dot over the i in Alliance to signify its environmental awareness.
   He says the letter i also shows the humanizing aspect of the party.
   ‘As a piece of design I think it looks more cohesive than the committee-led logos of National and Labour,’ he says, criticizing the major two parties in New Zealand.
   ‘I was given a lot of freedom, which is a good sign of how the party leadership handles matters. It clearly believes in trusting the right people.’
   As well as heading JY&A Consulting’s parent, Jack Yan & Associates, Mr Yan co-wrote Beyond Branding in 2003 and is a director of the Medinge Group, a branding think-tank based in Sweden.
   In October 2007 he was a keynote speaker for the Alliance Party at its annual conference.

From the Murdoch Press, not a good start for London mayor-elect Boris Johnson:

Boris Johnson got off on the wrong foot with staff at the Conservative Party’s headquarters after barring them from his victory party. …
   Only MPs, donors and a tiny number of political strategists were said to have been allowed to attend. One source said: “It is a kick in the teeth for all the workers. The party chiefs deserve a good hiding for it.”

   But it certainly was a good day for the Tories in the local elections. Daniel Finkelstein, in the same newspaper, wrote:

Gordon Brown is hardly the first to experience a bad night of results. Most leaders have had one of those. And there is a standard procedure. You pass round to your people in the studios a list of your triumphs and the failures of the other party. Every time the presenter mentions your terrible results in, say, Wales, you can say “but David Cameron has failed to break through in the North/cities/rural areas (delete as applicable) and only did a little bit better than Iain Duncan Smith in 2002.” …
   But as for reading out their own triumphs and the failures of others, this was made difficult by the fact that, er, there weren’t any. That much became clear at about 2am when it emerged that Cameron’s Tories had taken Bury.

   Labour is blaming its leader, says Mary Ann Sieghart, though I do not agree with her headline:

They may not always have liked what Tony Blair did, but at least they knew why he was doing it. Nobody ever complained of his weak leadership. With Mr Brown, they don’t understand why he does what he does—why abolish the 10p tax band if it was intended to help the poor?—and he is notably bad at either listening to their concerns or using charm and persuasiveness to win them and the voters over. Instead, he barks at his critics, denies the facts and even makes up some of his own. Yesterday, on the Today programme, he claimed to have taken a million children out of poverty, when the actual figure is 600,000. Inflation is hitting not only food and oil these days.

   No prizes for predicting the next General Election outcome.

A quote from the local elections in the UK today: ‘Gordon Brown has had his Life on Mars moment. He went to sleep in 2008 and today he’s waking up with support back to the worst his party has seen since records began in 1973.’
   How that series has changed the way Britons refer to things.
   Labour, under Gordon Brown, may even fall below the Liberal Democrats when it comes to the popular vote, says the right-leaning Daily Telegraph.
   Britons might just simply want a new bunch of people to make fun of and criticize, and David Cameron’s lot seems ready, they have decided. The next General Election will be telling.

The reasons I haven’t been fully supportive of John McCain have largely been from GOP-voting friends who have met him. They speak of a man who seems empty with a cold handshake. McCain supporters might say that that is a sign of a man who hates political functions and prefers getting on with the job. I guess it could be seen both ways.
   He has been the butt of my own jokes. On television a couple of years ago, I asked the audience, ‘So what party is this guy with again? I can never tell.’ There has been a perception of McCain being not conservative enough and even in the lead-up to his party’s nomination for the presidency there were members of the religious right who felt the senator from Arizona could not possibly be their guy. Hence, former Gov. Mike Huckabee looked more palatable to them; while the technocrats could not fathom anyone like Huckabee getting the nomination.
   Examine McCain’s record and he’s a pretty consistent conservative, from his time in Congress (where he was a supporter of Ronald Reagan), so this perception may have been an invention of the media and his opponents. Remember, when he and George W. Bush were battling it out in 2000, things got dirty as both ran attack ads. McCain came off pretty terribly.
   In fact, when I looked at McCain’s record today I am not too sure why there may be some liberal support for him, although he might be able to use that to his advantage with the voting public. Unless people like George W. Bush have been even more staunchly conservative and have offended those liberals.
   While voting for the War on Terror Sen. McCain also had amendments to bills added, such as ensuring that the US did not engage in illegal torture of its PoWs. That is easily explained: if you were beaten up and tortured yourself over a five-and-a-half year period, you’d be pretty averse to seeing another human being go through the same thing.
   I write of him now not because I have suddenly picked up a GOP baton and figured he’s the best choice for President, but because he hasn’t really had any time in the limelight.
   The media are chanting either Obama or Clinton, although more seem to be wondering why Hillary Clinton is still in the race. She must either know she’s a fading cause célèbre, or the Clinton fear-mongering tentacles of Arkancide run deeper in the MSM than we can give them credit. Unless she has a genuine chance, prepared to come on stream if something happens to Obama.
   I have written about Barack Obama on this blog because being a minority I want to redress the balance of some of the racist tendencies of some MSM coverage. Politically I do not agree with him any more than I agree with many of the contenders for their parties’ nominations. From memory most of the candidates have a 60 to 70 per cent similarity with my views, which makes you wonder if they are just all saying the right things.
   I feel similarly when I defend John McCain. He is the subject of less media coverage (which is the bias here), and he is the subject of ageism as America goes around with this notion that only a younger person can be a dynamic president.
   This is not just a US phenomenon: the west loves the idea of a young, glamorous leader.
   The US’s finest hours have come from experienced, wise presidents, backed up by strong and wise first ladies. JFK did not live long enough, in my view, to have given the country a “finest hour” in his presidency, though he was inspiring; historical presidents such as Adams, Lincoln, Hoover and FDR were hardly young men.
   In this election, Americans need to consider not just the candidate’s stated position but what their past says about their characters—not what the MSM, attack ads and campaign lies say.
   They need to strip away the biases of age, race and gender as each principal candidate has suffered from prejudice of one sort or the other.
   They need to examine McCain’s 27 years in elected office, without the rhetoric, just as they need to examine Obama’s 12 and Clinton’s eight. (If Obama is inexperienced, according to Clinton, then what does that make her?) And if we are to consider Clinton’s time as First Lady of the country and of Arkansas as she wishes us to, then the record of Lt Cmdr McCain and later Capt McCain needs to be considered, too.
   Because the next four years are not about trying to restore Camelot in the White House: they are about putting a person in the White House that can only preach honour but has shown it.
   Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, what we foreigners want to see is trustworthy leadership. Honour begins at home, and who do you want saying, ‘The buck stops here’?
   If voters dislike spin then who has offered the least spin, the candidate on whom you can rely most? Or that other countries can rely on most: that America’s enemies will know their days are numbered, that America’s allies will know they have a real friend, and that those who fell out with America know that the nation will in fact consistently and genuinely stand for freedom and liberty?
   Men like me were brought up to admire the US for its service to humanity and freedom, and its opposition to Communism, and we want to admire it again. It should not be a country perceived as slogan-heavy and substance-free, yet the perception has shifted toward this since the 1960s. A candidate who resorts to such techniques does not necessarily fit in the 2008 scene and, sadly, that is how I perceive Sen. Clinton. If McCain is really a maverick, then he might shake things up as much as people hope Obama will.
   This should be a race between McCain and Obama, and the next months, hopefully, will reveal it is just that.

This was interesting today. The Daily Telegraph reported on the campaign spending (specifically on make-up and grooming) by Nicolas Sarkozy and his rival Ségolène Royal during the French presidential election. Despite being thought of as a conservative newspaper, it painted a rosier picture of Mlle Royal than M. Sarkozy.
   First up, Sarkozy’s (over-)spending was the lead-in to the story, even though Royal’s was much higher. Mlle Royal’s spending was left to the third paragraph.
   Secondly, the standards used to round off are biased in favour of Ségolène Royal. Here are the figures I uncovered, compared with the rounding that the Telegraph did.

• Nicolas Sarkozy, spent €34,445—rounded in The Daily Telegraph as €35,000 (I would have rounded it to €34,000 or said ‘around €34,500’)
• Ségolène Royal, spent €53,581—rounded in The Daily Telegraph as €52,000 (I would have rounded it to €54,000—correspondent Henry Samuel shaves off a hefty €1,581 for the socialist leader)

Reimbursements:

• Nicolas Sarkozy was reimbursed €11,482—The Daily Telegraph reported €12,000 (I would have rounded it to €11,000 or said ‘around €11,500’)
• Ségolène Royal was reimbursed €17,220—The Daily Telegraph reported €17,000 (I would have used the same figure)

In every case, it might have been easier just to report the actual figures.
   The message, unless the figures I got from the French media are wrong: overestimate the spending by the right and make it look like the President is getting more state funds; underestimate the spending by the left and understate its burden on the state.
   The Telegraph might need to re-examine its mathematics.