Jack Yan on Vox

Obama more “exciting” than McCain—and why this matters

nobody@vox.com(Jack Yan) — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 11:44:41 +1200

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.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Rebranding the Alliance

nobody@vox.com(Jack Yan) — Thu, 08 May 2008 23:45:22 +1200

[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.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

David Horowitz on the reasons for the Iraq War

nobody@vox.com(Jack Yan) — Thu, 08 May 2008 18:38:19 +1200

Whether you support the war in Iraq or you don’t—and here in New Zealand we have the luxury to criticize the United States—David Horowitz’s recollection (video found originally on Humbled Infidel’s blog) of why the US went in certainly correlates with my own. It’s why I have always held back attacking President George W. Bush, because faced with what he had in front of him, I cannot honestly say I would not have done the same thing. As Horowitz reveals, neither would Al Gore, who supported Bush’s ‘axis of evil’ speech in 2002.
   The end of this video (cut short) goes into the rationale for war surrounding UN Security Council resolution 1441, which PM Tony Blair managed to sell to Parliament—but which, I always felt, the US was less successful at doing. There are legal arguments there based on the UN Charter but it was always about 1441.
   This is one of the problems I tend to have with the US Democratic Party, for all my own left-leaning tendencies. Right now, for example, constituents are begging the super-delegates that they should not select who will best beat Sen. John McCain and the Republicans, but who represents their position. The fact this question has even arisen is disturbing: as representatives of the people of course one should represent the citizens. The minute you do not, you do not have a democracy: it is a quest for power among élites ignoring the citizenry, the sort of thing people were getting away from when the US was founded.
   I am not saying that the GOP wouldn’t look after its own, but given that they have fielded men like Sen. Bob Dole—who from a marketing perspective was a tough sell against President Clinton—it seems that it might be more willing to represent its base than look at seizing power. The 42nd president gifted them the Monica Lewinsky situation, which hurt the Democrats. I would say that they never forgave the GOP or Kenneth Starr who were steadfast in their condemnation and investigation. That power-hungriness from the Democrats is very apparent in the way the Bush administration has been undermined in the last eight years.

David Horowitz - Party of Defeat

   I say if one opposes the war, then there are ways to do it without resorting to revisionism. I might not agree with our PM, Helen Clark, on her courses of action, but at least she took a position based on the facts before her and said ‘No’ to going in to Iraq. She has never gone and revised history, and simply held firm on her principles. She has good support for it because most New Zealanders opposed the war and carried out her job (on that occasion) as a servant and representative of the people.
   The consequences of Resolution 1441 were always clear but the means of acting upon them were less so because of the way the UN Charter is written, and that ambiguity effectively gave some countries a chance of opting out. Our PM took it, as did the leaders of many other nations. It is respectful, even if she later made a gaffe about how she did not think a Gore presidency would have gone to war. (As Horowitz reminds us, that is probably an incorrect position.) They believed that an extra resolution was needed before war; the US, UK, Australia and others did not.
   The Democratic Party and the anti-war movement probably think that this is all too tough to sell to the public, so they engage in other tactics, shaming US troops or the administration and pressuring those who have short memories to join their cause. I am not saying that what they have uncovered is all untrue—of course I accept there are dodgy dealings surrounding the war and I even accept some misconduct—but they’d earn my respect if they didn’t flip-flop or cover up the truth. Sen. Clinton, who voted for the war, who voted for the increase in expenditure alongside Sen. John Kerry, is one of those very high-profile politicians who has changed depending on the trade winds of public opinion.
   Of course a senator or a future president must be representative but she must also stand on truth. ‘I was wrong to have supported the war because …’ would have been a good start. ‘Now the American people are telling me that it is time to withdraw our troops.
   ‘My support was founded on the belief that resolution 1441 was inviolable. It was not, and we have carried out the due punishment needed on Saddam Hussein’s régime.’
   There are millions of ways to spin it, especially ways to do it without demoralizing the young men and women serving in Iraq—and I am not even a politician.
   This would also mean she’d have to go against her husband’s attacks on Kosovo, which also did not have that additional Security Council resolution but was a preemptive strike by the US. George W. Bush is not alone, just that the media give him more grief over it.
   But a mea culpa is not flip-flopping and it is not pandering. It is being honest, something the Beltway sees very rarely.
   What concerns me, however, is that the road to war is a serious matter. It should not be so easily bent because the decision should be founded on principle—and if those principles existed after resolution 1441 was broken then they exist today. Congress voted for the war, with bipartisan support. There needs to be a far bigger shift for any US representative to say no to the war now—so what is it?
   A poor entry strategy, a poor exit strategy, the belief that the US’s only task was to oust Saddam Hussein, the belief that the parameters of the original declaration of war have been fulfilled—what? Certainly Sen. Clinton needs to tell us.
   She has said that she would not have voted for the war if she knew there were no WMDs. But as Horowitz points out, the existence of WMDs was not the basis for war. Did Sen. Clinton “misspeak” again?
   There is a popular notion that that was what resolution 1441 was all about and we all remember Sec. Powell’s Powerpoint presentations to the UN.
   But unless Sen. Clinton has misremembered this incident as well, resolution 1441 on November 8, 2002 was about Iraq’s non-compliance with conditions laid down by the international community over disarmament, which included WMDs, but they were not the core issue.
   When Iraq lied about what it did with its WMDs, which the international community confirmed it had as late as 1998, the US took a hard line.
   Iraq itself never offered an explanation on the discrepancy between its claims and tests by the inspectors.
   That was one legal justification for the US and the UK, and, skipping over a few issues, the war began.
   I sure wish the US politicians would just tell the truth about the vote at that time because they should have a better understanding of it, having been there—rather than let people like me catch them out.
   This is another reason to not dislike Bush: he said he would stay the course, so he did. The majority of Americans voted for him in 2004 (regardless of whether one is counting the electoral college or the popular vote) and knew this full well. And while I think some of his spending has sent that US deficit soaring, he has stayed firm on his belief in his tax cuts. He seems content because he thinks he is protecting the Constitution and that he needs to continue his strategy. Maybe that is the Bush world-view. (He saw how his Dad got burned on the ‘No new taxes’ and learned from it. He saw how his Dad lost the support of the right wing of the GOP and learned from it. And he saw how he was criticized for being too smart when he ran for Congress—which is where the folksy public image comes from. Welcome to Bushland.)
   Had the war successfully concluded people would praise him on his steadfastness.
   For if a leader bends based on the trade winds, then will she bend based on pressure from other sovereign nations? If Saudi Arabia put pressure to bear on the US, would Sen. Clinton cave in? If a communist nation put pressure on Sen. Obama, would he? Or, for that matter, how far will Sen. McCain bend to foreign pressure?
   We cannot turn back the clock now and see how the message could have been better communicated to the US. We should know, from the Horowitz video, why the US went in and understand who is now lying to the American public: that is important. For all his failings in everything from the Patriot Act (which I am no fan of, and it has restricted the movement of people who could benefit the US) to the Alberto González judicial appointments, I do not think it was President Bush. I have never called him a bare-faced liar.
   The next presidential election is a chance to address those failings. The economy can be fixed but what is in dire need of repair are the values to which not only Americans want moral leadership, but most of us in the western world. Get the values right, get the truth right, and the rest will follow.
   At the end of the day I care not if the president is a Democrat or a Republican, and I have no say in it anyway, as long as our common values are restored and preserved, and the leader is truthful. And that the decision for staying the course or withdrawing is also founded on truth.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

How to restore faith in American politics

nobody@vox.com(Jack Yan) — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 11:16:01 +1200

American Infidel posted an excellent piece from Cross Action News on how the US political system has been compromised, by Carl Parnell. Some excerpts:

However, as seen in these different opinions, politicians have been blamed for the failure of America’s political system. But, one respondent to the survey voiced a strong opinion that put the blame on average Americans. Her opinion was:

Our Constitution frames the best form of government on the planet. The balance of powers and the system of checks and balances provided a framework that allowed our young country to grow and develop and remain despot free for the last 220 years. The government itself is not what I have lost faith in. “We the People” is what I have lost faith in.

And advice for the electorate follows (my emphasis), and I have to agree with it as I have never, in the elections I have participated in, voted for personal gain. Even for those who do not believe in God or in prayer, the remaining advice is still useful:

   “Of the people, by the people, for the people” means the people should educate themselves and elect leaders at all levels that work for them. The people should watch what those elected officials do and boot them out of office when they no longer work for the people. The caliber of citizens and politicians has declined in the last 220 years.
   Therefore, America’s political system is at a crossroads in 2008. When the American electorate votes for the President of the United States and for any members of Congress in November 2008, they must absolutely know the true facts about each candidate. Citizens of the United States must not permit the race, gender, or political party of the candidate be a determining factor in who wins the election. Citizens of the United States must not let personal economic gain become the deciding factor in which candidate they vote for in any election. Citizens of the United States must vote for candidates who have the true qualities of great leaders, such as those possessed by America’s forefathers. Some of these qualities would be honesty, integrity, morality, faith in the nation they serve, faith in the people they serve, having the character of a statesman instead of the character of many modern-day politicians. Of course, true representative leaders of the United States should always pray to God before voting on any legislation that affects the greatest nation in the world.
   However, if America continues to elect people to office that assume the role of a politician instead of a statesman, America may lose more than just the faith of its citizens toward its political system. America may possibly lose its status as the greatest nation in the world.

There is still support for the US around the world—but they need a beacon to look up to rather than to criticize. In November, vote to make America great again—not just in economic terms, but in terms of the true leadership and morality that it can stand for.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

John McCain: thankful for his service

nobody@vox.com(Jack Yan) — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:00:48 +1200

I am not Sen. John McCain’s biggest cheerleader by any means—heck, I even made fun of him on national television—but there are aspects of his life where you think, ‘Man, this guy has served his country.’ And when I say ‘served his country,’ I don’t mean taking a trip to Bosnia with Chelsea Clinton and coming under sniper ﬁre. Some quotes about his past, which might explain just why he has his fans. First, from VietnamWar.com:

John McCain’s 5½ years of captivity in North Vietnam were divided into two phases. Early on, this son and grandson of high-ranking Naval officers was accorded relatively privileged status. Then he refused early release—which he saw as a public relations stunt by his captors—insisting that POWs held longer than him should be granted their freedom first. Thereafter, McCain was treated much more severely, but he also had an opportunity to bond with his fellow prisoners.

   So this captured PoW, a Naval Lieutanant Commander, who had suffered two fractured arms, a fractured leg, a bayonet wound in the foot, said: I’m not going home early, no matter how bad.
   He was then beaten every two hours in the second phase, while suffering from dysentry, and later two to three beatings a week. While not the worst given out to PoWs in Vietnam, McCain said he discovered where his breaking point was.
   When running for Senate, and accused of being a carpet-bagger, McCain responded to a journalist:

Listen, pal. I spent 22 years in the Navy. My father was in the Navy. My grandfather was in the Navy. We in the military service tend to move a lot. We have to live in all parts of the country, all parts of the world. I wish I could have had the luxury, like you, of growing up and living and spending my entire life in a nice place like the First District of Arizona, but I was doing other things. As a matter of fact, when I think about it now, the place I lived longest in my life was Hanoi.

I know this is McCain in his past, and not everyone agrees with him today, but these aspects don’t seem to be brought up much in the media. He holds a Silver Star, Bronze Star, the Legion of Merit, the Purple Heart and a Distinguished Flying Cross, and retired in 1981 in the rank of Captain.
If the American election is about experience, as Sen. Clinton says, then John McCain looks pretty unbeatable. But, this election is about so much more.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Mike Huckabee is right to be proud of his Christian faith

nobody@vox.com(Jack Yan) — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 16:03:31 +1300

What Really Matters

Former Arkansas governor and Republican presidential nominee hopeful Mike Huckabee released a 30 sec ad in the US talking about Jesus Christ, which appears to have got some Americans upset.
   The Murdoch Press quotes from the commercial: ‘Are you about worn out by all the television commercials you’ve been seeing, mostly about politics? Well, I don’t blame you. At this time of year sometimes it’s nice to pull aside from all of that and just remember that what really matters is the celebration of the birth of Christ and being with our family and friends.’
   Sounds good to me.
   I like a planet where we saw Hanukkah a few weeks back. I enjoyed seeing Muslims make pilgrimages for Eid ul-Adha on al-Jazeera. And, by all means, Gov Huckabee, a Christian, should proudly invoke his faith and talk about Jesus Christ.
   I thought the true meaning of political correctness was accepting everyone’s beliefs, not undermining those of the majority in their nations. In fact, I didn’t imagine political correctness equated to godless communism. Or maybe it does?
   Gov Huckabee told a congregation in San Antonio, ‘Sometimes in the middle of Christmas, Jesus is the one person who’s tough to find. You notice that? I can find Santa at every mall, you can find discounts in every store but if you mention the name of Jesus, as I found out recently, it upsets the whole world. Forgive me but I thought that was the point of the whole day.’
   I agree.
   With so many people sending holiday greetings this December from the western world, have folks noticed that many have missed Hanukkah? The ‘Happy holidays’ greetings I received are largely timed for Christmas and were sent after the Jewish festival this year. A number of Muslim friends have sent Eid greetings.
   When I know the sender does not follow Islam or observes Kwanzaa, then saying ‘Happy holidays’ doesn’t diminish the fact that the greeting is for Christmas, a day during which I can bet they are not working.
   My point is that there are a lot of people celebrating specifically Christmas, whether they proclaim a belief in Jesus Christ or not. In Mike Huckabee’s case, he’s celebrating it his way by going back to basics.
   I think he has a right to do that—and if he is a Christian, I am glad he is proud to proclaim his faith, rather than hide it because he’s so scared about offending parts of the electorate.
   I’d write a similar post if another candidate proclaimed another faith: if this is what one believes, then why hide it?

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

QotD: honours and scandals

nobody@vox.com(Jack Yan) — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 02:26:33 +1300

Despite the scandal of his recent arrest, Sen. Larry Craig is being inducted into the Idaho Hall of Fame. Should his legal troubles have any impact on the award?

Here’s what we know overseas about Sen. Craig. We know he got nabbed doing a George Michael. He’s denied he’s gay and in a country like New Zealand, where sexual preference is no block to being a good public servant, this denial is hard to believe. He said he would resign and he took it back. Basically, he’s portrayed in our media as a flip-flopper with no backbone. If that’s what Idaho wishes to have as its worldwide representative, he’s perfect. Otherwise, I vote no.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Are the Democrats ﬂip-ﬂopping over Iraq again?

nobody@vox.com(Jack Yan) — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 12:54:33 +1200

If I was an American and part of the anti-war movement, I would be pretty pissed and wonder who the heck would actually get the boys and girls home from Iraq. These are excerpts from the latest Democratic telecast or debate, from what I understand.
We all know the dangers of quoting out of context, so if anyone has the full transcript, please feed in a comment and I’ll make sure it’s linked. I am always suspicious of any message with the words Rush Limbaugh in it.

Tim Russert: Senator Obama, will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of your ﬁrst term, more than ﬁve years from now, that there will be no troops, US troops in Iraq?
Barack Obama: I think it’s hard to project four years from now. I think it would be irresponsible. We don’t know what contingencies will be out there.

Rush Limbaugh: Senator Clinton, you have said that you will not pledge to have all troops out by the end of your ﬁrst term, 2013. Why not?
Hillary Clinton: It is very difficult to know what we’re going to be inheriting. You know, we do not know, walking into the White House in January 2009, what we’re going to ﬁnd.

Rush Limbaugh: Senator Edwards, will you commit that at the end of your ﬁrst term, 2013, that all US troops will be out of Iraq?
John Edwards: I cannot make that commitment.

   Remember, folks, a lot of the Democratic candidates voted for the war in Iraq, and they’re still for it, it seems. I could have sworn that only a few weeks ago, the Senator from New York pledged to have US troops back.
   Maybe it was all conditional: it’s hard to tell with sound bites in the media. But these little nuggets will be enough for some.
   I can bet that the conservative media are rubbing their hands in glee over another chance to say, ‘Flip ﬂop,’ regardless of whether any of the leading Democratic candidates for the White House have actually changed their positions.
   Whatever the case, Iraq could be set to be another US base as Germany, Okinawa and South Korea are, regardless of whether a Republican or Democrat gets in to the White House.
   And it makes candidates like Fred Thompson look pretty good: I’ll stay the course, but I’ll drag the Frenchies in. Darn that Arthur Branch and that straight-up Tennessee image.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Fred Dalton Thompson doesn’t have much hair

nobody@vox.com(Jack Yan) — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 11:18:29 +1300

When I think about my career with fingers in different pies, it’s not that unusual. Sen. Fred Dalton Thompson of Tennessee, whom Americans will know from Law & Order and whom most of us foreigners know from Die Hard 2, could hold down representing his state and plain representin’ on TV and film.
   I kept saying that Republicans might find a candidate who is well known. Could it be Mr Thompson? More people have seen him than Sen. McCain. Only former mayor Giuliani has a higher profile.
   But all these guys do not have much hair.
   Americans always have trouble voting for someone who has less hair than his opponent, whether for a presidential, senatorial or congressional race (there are some exceptions, of course). You can be black or female, just not bald.
   “Hat tip” to Dox² for the video below.

Fred on the issues

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Watching Gerald Ford’s funeral Down Under

nobody@vox.com(Jack Yan) — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 00:07:05 +1300

061231-ap-fordvideo-1

061231-ap-fordvideo-2

I didn’t blog about this at the time, though I intended to. Above are screen shots of an Associated Press video on President Ford’s coffin arriving in Washington, DC. As you can see, it was a bloody pain to watch. I know there are liberal journos over there in Washington—I remember one (conservative) foundation found that 93 per cent voted for Clinton and 7 per cent for Dole in ’96—and the conspiracy theorists would have put this reversed-and-upside-down treatment to them. Or, was it just because we are Down Under and this is the way AP broadcasts to us, figuring we are on the other side of the world?

Read and post comments | Send to a friend