2012 Election: 9-1-1 Emergency!

If it's broken, fix it. 

Yes, we Republicans have a pretty sad lot going into the '12 elections. For the first time that I can remember, even though I follow the process closely, I have no real excitement for it. Didn't think it was possible. I've finally decided that Romney is my candidate- but really, there's no love there. As for everyone else the names are all over the map..Bachmann, Perry vs Romney, Romney vs Cain, and...Gingrich? *sigh* But there is one point most conservatives seem to agree on: Obama’s time is done. The 2012 election is in the bag.

Stop. Rewind. Reality check. It’s when we start thinking this way that things start going south and instead of clinching victory, jaws drop and we wonder what just happened. When it comes to taking advantage of positive outcomes and making gains from sinking Democrat ratings, this year party leaders seem intent on sabotaging opportunity and turning the tables against themselves. Really, true story.

If it weren’t for Obama’s toilet ratings, we wouldn’t have a chance.

The election process signals an opportunity for a changing of the guards. Its an opportunity for parties to show the people what they can offer and why it's better than the competition. Right now, I'm thinking Canada might be a nice place to live in 2013.

Image is Key
Fragmentation, religious extremism, overstepping, the ‘my way or the highway’ attitude, and sheer stupidity in front of the camera is wreaking havoc on our party image not to mention our end game. It’s not loyal Republicans or religious extremists the party needs to win over- it’s everyone else and that requires creating (and maintaining) positive public perception of what we can and are doing. On that front-Fail.

Case(s) in point…

• A dumbed-down decade? Bachmann kills us with her gift of knowledge for economic policy and US history..over and over again. Bachmann, Perry, Romney..engaging in foreign policy debates without bringing foreign policy knowledge, or facts, to the table. The televised debates- just painful. What happened to preparation? Someone should show these peeps a job posting for the position they're applying. Fact checker anyone? I'll work for cheap.

• Religion as politics: Religion has always had a place in the party platform and, in small subtle doses, can enhance the presidential presentation. After all, this country wasn’t founded by a bunch of non-believers. But fundamentalists with political ambitions? Hard right wingers don’t represent the party majority (or the national majority) and yet we’ve been seeing them too much in press and hearing too much from their representatives.

*Remember the end game; remember the audience* Solution: Stop giving these people a microphone.

• 2011 budget: We stood firm on total cuts needed and I applauded those efforts; in the end we got most of what we asked for. Hoorah. And then we overstepped with Planned Parenthood funding using the premise of spend reduction. Really. Inconsequential to the total budget and one of the few government spends producing long term saves. Threatening a shutdown is one thing but stepping dangerously close to letting it happen is called sabotaging a good thing. Supremely bad press. Think Big Picture. Obviously this was about other agendas. We had an opportunity to come out on top and we came out looking ready and willing to undermine progress simply to open doors for overturning Roe v Wade. Seriously? Score 1 for the Democrats.

• Debt ceiling agreement: holding up the process in the final stretch demanding the exclusion of provisions that ultimately ended up in the final package anyway (i.e., tax hikes, defense cuts). The point? Democrats got what they wanted and we looked like the Grinch who nearly stole Christmas. *maybe we need better press people* Surprisingly, a lot of Republicans think we got a huge win. Apparently they skipped over the fine print details of the role of the super committee. clap-clap-clap for the asses; boot in the rear for Republicans.

United we stand
Or not. What’s Prince Reibus been doing these days anyway…

Public bickering between leaders, dissension of core ideas, Republican party Republicans versus Tea Party Republicans, no strong frontrunner... Romney may be leading the pack but the ongoing fluctuation of top frontrunners, begging for Chris Christie's candidacy, the fact that Gingrich is still in..clear indications that mainstream Republicans do not have a strong allegiance to Romney or the other candidates and in general, feel we're pretty much at a low point with the candidate pool. Who to pick, who to pick. And oh yes, only one has a real shot of beating Obama anyway.

So, in the bag? At the end of 2010 that outcome seemed a real possibility. Now we have to fight even harder to make it reality. Time to change our tune and do it smartly or the direness of the last four years will end with "another 4 years"..

The Obama-GM Debacle

Obama says he wants to, “get G.M. back on its feet, take a hands-off approach and get out quickly.”

Problem: No plan.
Obama wants to build affordable green cars and save the mega company yet, he’s presented no product plan, no manufacturing plan and no plan for appeasing creditors, not to mention the fact that no one on his staff has experience turning around a large, complex, flailing company.


Problem: Get in and get out? More like get in and duck.
Obama and his diaper, er dapper clad youngings claim that they can get GM out of debt quickly and help them turn a profit after investing tax-payer dollars to the tune of $50billion. Really? That’s an arrogant notion considering GM’s been stuck in the non-profit quagmire for decades (and again, no one on Obama's staff has any experience dealing with billion dollar instant makeovers).

Obama wants GM to focus on building small, energy efficient cars for the future, yet GM's most profitable and most popular cars are the gas-guzzling SUVs and its monster Cadillac Escalade. What’s more, automotive economists have pointed out that sales of small-engine, green cars account for only 17 % of total automotive sales in the US and that it's a very competitve sector.

More arrogance. I'll miss those tax-payer dollars....


Problem: UAW, UAW, UAW
Management and the UAW have had a bad marriage for the last 30 years which has dragged down the entire company. Why neither party has ever filed for divorce befuddles me. Today's UAW is like some pesky virus that plagues every sector of the business until it's no longer functioning, and now they have even more stake in the company. Brill.

The UAW doesn’t approve of sending production off-shore, and while I agree that we need to keep jobs here, what the UAW doesn’t understand, or chooses to ignore, is that the UAW is the reason many U.S. automakers have turned to foreign production. Not only has the UAW priced itself out of the market with its incredulous wages, benefits and union dues, but they've gone greedy with their business dealings. Like I always say, they don't do squat but they sure do pay people well to take an 8-hour lunch break cleverly disguised as an 8-hour work day.

This UAW situation motto was pulled from the 'about us' page of their website:

"Wake-up, wake-up [yawn, stretch, yawn]...that bolt in the production line
needs to be replaced. Stop production. Go to maintenance and fill out a requisition to get the bolt guy to come down here and replace it. As soon as maintenance approves that other requisition to fill that open management position, hopefully we'll have the bolt guy down here sometime next month. In the meantime, here's
your paycheck for the next 4 weeks, plus bonus. Have a nice lunch."

Ok, so it didn't come from their website... Very amusing though is the thought of government getting into bed with the UAW. *chuckle, chuckle* That's likely to have explosive outcomes.


Problem: American car company + European car company = Disaster
Obama has given Chrysler 30 days to come-up with a game-plan for the newly proposed "ChryslerFiat", with a promise to provide $6billion in financial backing.

Flashback: Past attempts to merge failing US automakers with European automakers (American Motors and Renault, Daimler-Chrysler etc.) has resulted in poor quality, managment fumble-bumbles, revenue nose-dives, and expensive products that people just don't want. And apparently, neither do the automakers that produced them since even GM and Ford are dumping their still fairly new European divisions faster than you can say SAAB.


Problem: Any business + Government = Disaster
The government holds a 60% stake in GM. Does anyone really think this is a good thing?

Let’s consider…
City transportation: Loses millions every year. [FAIL.]

AMTRAK – has lost over $500 Million during the whole of its government-run lifespan with debts totaling more than $3Billion. [FAIL.]

Social and Welfare programs – [FAIL.]

Medicare – I read somewhere that Medicare was so lax in its oversight that they were approving orthopedic shoes for leg amputees. [FAIL.]

Federal deficit before Obama – [FAIL.]

Federal deficit after Obama – Obama has nearly tripled the deficit. Who knew one could expound even more on failure. [FAIL.]

The government-run Government - [FAIL.]

All, at the end of the day, private enterprise is the best there is at alleviating suffering and maximizing wealth to the most people most effectively and efficiently.

'Nuff said.

Keeping Guantanamo Open

A controversial topic...but those are always more fun to talk about.

Closing Guantanamo is a symbolic move, but it's not the right move. Of course, saying that out loud doesn’t yield popular votes or help make new friends; you’re more likely to come across as an insensitive swine. *I can feel the e-tomatoes flying already* In any case, popular sentiment doesn’t change reality.

First: when you consider the purpose for it, the environment, the people in it, and the security, etc... Guantanamo is clearly a unique facility. Fact is...even closed, a facility of this kind will have to exist somewhere. The entire facility is guarded by military personnel, guards are armed to the hilt, and doctors have to wear heavy armor when treating prisoners to protect themselves against violent attacks like stabbings. All of these elements ((plus interrogation and national security) go beyond what we would consider standard prison environment. Given the nature of the detainees and the primary function of the facility, the location seems to me to be an ideal one.

“An effective counterterrorism policy would segregate terrorists from society, gain intelligence about their activities and organization by lawful means, hold them criminally responsible for their crimes, and discourage the spread of their numbers and ideology.”

As far as I'm concerned, successfully achieving the first three goals is quite enough for me to validate keeping Guantanamo open. Few will deny that there have been abuses in the interrogation process - perhaps even gross atrocities. That said, the existence of these abuses does not and should not discredit the benefits of the facility or the necessity for keeping it open. If the detention facilities at Guantanamo are closed, the United States will still have legal and moral obligations to safeguard the prisoners, collect intelligence, and try war criminals. In fact, there are many who agree that meeting those obligations in accordance with national security concerns will require procedures and facilities that look an awful lot like Guantanamo.

Second: looking at our own domestic prisons I'm not ignorant enough to believe that similar abuses aren’t occurring. I know abuses happen; I watch 20/20 and Dateline! ;-) Prisoners may not be chained for days without food or use of bathroom facilities (that's the nicest way to put that), but are prisoners who are beaten by guards, gang-raped and demoralized considered to be receiving better treatment? How do we distinguish? On one hand we have Guantanamo and public outcry over the treatment of terrorists who live and die to kill Americans (meaning they could give a squats ass about you) and on the other hand the public doesn't say boo about the treatment of American prisoners within our own domestic detention facilities. I find the obvious contradiction extremely disturbing and I believe this one consideration alone renders the whole argument of prisoner treatment at Guantanamo moot.

In any case, before we even consider closing Guantanamo, it needs to be stated very clearly how the government intends to collect intelligence, interrogate detainees and safeguard prisoners more effectively and humanely than the current detention operations at Guantanamo. Following that, the government needs to address how they intend to monitor all of those operations to ensure the proper processes are being followed (or being followed any differently than the current operations at Guantanamo). I've heard nothing; I've read nothing that addresses these important questions. Arguing that the United States should close the facilities merely to placate criticisms of its detention policies is not enough (unless of course you're Obama or part of his idiot administration).

*I find this whole Guantanamo business eerily similar to the administration's handling of Healthcare - let's not identify the issues and try to fix the problem, let's appease public opinion by making stupid decisions to take focus away from the issue, and hope the issue resolves itself*

moving on...

If we close Guantanamo…where do the prisoners go?
A friend posted a video on Facebook recently and the message of the youtube video was basically: Terrorist..Coming Soon to Your Neighborhood. Extreme? Probably not by much. One possibility under consideration is to send detainees to local prisons; another option is to send them to Camp Pendleton. I suggest another alternative...if GITMO does close, cut a hole in the fence and let them loose in Cuba. Castro was nice enough to empty his prisons and send them to us in the 70's, let's return the favor! And by the by, sending suspected terrorists to a prison facility filled with militarly prisoners - isn't on par with creating a more humane environment; in fact I would argue that it's more akin to putting sheep in the lion's den. Putting suspected terrorists at the mercy of American prisoners and guards - military or otherwise - also seems to render the whole argument of prisoner treatment at Guantanamo moot. On second thought, this option does have some appeal...

Next idiot move.....

A Sinking GOP

Just a few years ago, I was telling college students that the problem with the Democratic party is that…there is no true party. Eight years ago, the Democratic party brand was in shambles. It had no solid ideology to spout, no real platform, dissent ran amuck throughout the party, and there was no strength in leadership.

Suddenly, today’s Republican Party has landed itself where the democrats were 8 years ago: lacking a coherent vision that resonates with ordinary voters and weighed down by ideological bankruptcy. States are turning blue, pulpit religion seems to be finding its way into a lot of party conversations, the party as a whole feels demoralized and beaten, and strong party leaders are non-existent. I’m not sure I could even name a solid top 5. And if I could, no folks, Sarah Palin would not be on that list.

Briefly on Sarah Palin: let’s face it; Palin energized the Party base – no joke. But here’s the reality: we were so desperate to reinvigorate a lifeless party, to bring youth to our ideas and our image, that we blinded ourselves to what can be classically characterized as a woman who is just plain air-headed. We scorn Obama for his down–right idiot behavior in recent months (as well we should), but can we honestly say Palin would have given a better representation – as VP or possibly as President. EH. No. And yet we wanted that November win so badly (and just as badly we wanted the Democrats to fall with a thunderous THUMP), that we ignored the obvious to get there.

Many of us know what it means to live, breathe and “be” Republican, but there seem to be a lot more who just don’t get it. What has happened to our party since the Reagan days? Republican politicians tout Reagan's name to invigorate skeptical voters *and we within the party love hearing his name*, but Reagan was last President in 1989. What does that say about our party when the last great conservative leader we quote was leading twenty years ago??? Are we even still the same party that Reagan loved so much? Certainly not; we just use his name.

George W. Bush's popularity pretty much tanked our overall image, but there’s no denying the fact that there’s a lot more going on in the GOP that is responsible for its decline. Anyone who says otherwise would probably vote Palin for President in 2012. *you know who you are*

What we need to do
We need to rebuild the Republican brand. We need to rebuild from the local level and let the revolution spread upward and outward. I’ve seen it start here in the Springs – a lot of togetherness and discussion. Let’s spread the passion and renew the party.

The party has to do a better job of communicating, in plain English, what our policies mean to the people here at home. The awesomeness of our ideals hasn’t changed, but younger generations don’t seem to get us. We need to do a better job of saying: This is what we believe, this is why we believe it, and this is what it means to you; for reasons a, b, and c…this is how our “vision” impacts you. Simply saying what you believe and pointing at the other guy isn’t enough – not today. The future of the party isn’t the older generation who remember what the party used to be, but the young folks coming out of college who will make it what it needs to become. And from young to old, left to right, people need to understand the connection between policy and personal impact.

And finally,

The party has to be above bitterness and anger. It seems that so many conservatives these days are more interested in spewing pure hatred for leftist ideologies that they refuse to engage in real intellectual conversations on the issues. And I’m not saying the left doesn’t do this either but who cares what they’re doing. Whatever it is…they’re doing it better than we are. And if there’s something to really be angry about, let’s start there.

Obama's Staffing Wage-freeze

So I still haven’t heard Obama’s inauguration speech and I probably won’t bother to check it out. I heard it was very glib - intended to alleviate some of the pressure of expectation I'm sure. The day after his speech though, I did hear some clap-clap-hoorahs in and around the office over his “firm-footed” decision making after promising a wage-freeze on White House staffers making over $100k. According to an article published in the Washington Post, the freeze is expected to save the government ~$440k next year. Note: I only have a hard copy but I’m sure you can find the article on their website at washingtonpost.com

A savings of $440k…Whoop, whoop!

*more like clap-clap-clap THUD*.

Obviously Obama is trying to set a tone at the start of his administration by making an example of his own staff. Clap-clap-clap for Obama’s PR skills, but we already knew he led smoothly in that category anyway. What exactly does this accomplish? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Nothing good anyway. I’m not balking over a government wage freeze, but hailing this move as a bold stroke from our new, fearless leader seems egregiously underserved, especially considering Bush already increased salaries via executive order on December 18th. DOH!

Did Obama forget to mention that? * Obama says, “My bad.” *

During Obama’s campaign, his economic plan for getting the country out of a recession was essentially government supply side economics. When private enterprise isn't able to stimulate the economy, the government steps in with new spending and government programs to keep money afloat and people in jobs until the country is out of recession. When that happens, government spending takes a backseat while the free market economy flourishes.

And so when government steps in with all these great things, where does the money come from? Tax payers..duh. And this of course, leads us to the conservative argument that increasing taxes during an economic recession is well, stupid.

To stimulate the economy, you want people to spend.

Nevertheless…I guess that just means that the extra taxes off the $440k we might have otherwise received to help pay for Obama’s spending programs, will not be coming from his high-seat government staffers – just everyone else.

Lobbying is Democracy in Action

Oh here we go…

As many know, my blog posting has been in hiatus for nearly three months now. **What can I say, I’ve been in mourning since the dismal outcome of the elections** And I suspect the next two weeks will be nearly as painful as I’ve already started receiving “woot-woot all hail the mighty ‘Bama” messages from many of my liberal friends and family – folks who, if they aren't already, are quickly moving to my “adoringly disillusioned” friends list ;-)

We love them, despite their objectionable political leanings. :-)

So, I’ve been idling my time the last two weeks trying to avoid thinking about the upcoming inauguration, and I started playing catch-up with the pileup of Newsweek issues blocking my doorway (not really). I hit the December 22nd edition on Sunday and came upon this beauty of an article: Lobbying is Democracy in Action.

The underlying premise of the article is, “If people can’t organize to influence the government, then Democracy is dead.” Everybody get that? Ergo, without the lobbyist environment, Democracy is dead. If the author’s intent was to induce a physical reaction, then bravo, it worked. There are so many things wrong with this article; I’m not even sure where to begin but my fingers are twitching violently even as I type.

First: The definition of a Democracy does not hedge on one point. In short, a democracy encompasses all of the following attributes: a form of government that supports free and fair elections, active participation of the people in government and civic life, rule of law that applies equally to all citizens, and protection of human rights for all citizens.

Second: Given that our form of government is not a Democracy, which hinges on a controlling government predicated on ‘majority rules’, how is this article even relevant? Fact: we are a Republic, and yes, there is a distinct difference. **If you didn’t know this, well….** That said, I’d expect a Newsweek author to know better. People frequently mis-apply the term Democracy when talking about our government but it is just that – misapplied.

Third: even if we were a Democracy (which, again – we’re not), since when do lobbyists ever represent the majority? Assuming their intentions are always on the side of ‘the people’ (which - they aren’t), lobbying is the only way to influence government? Really?

And finally: how much success has the lobbyist environment ever really had on “influencing” government anyway – campaign contributions and political briberies aside. On the last two points, I’m sure those are talking points best swept under the rug anyway.

The author must think that the majority of Americans, or those who read Newsweek, are infinitely stupid or just plain ignorant. <>

There’s a reason why lobbyists have a bad rap – and no, it’s not because they represent the 'will of the people' and are therefore every politicians worst nightmare. Sleezy influence merchants who block traffic, clog intersections, pollute the street with useless road signs, spew annoying rhetoric and and touch on your every last nerve? You betcha! Ok, sleezy - not always. But the rest - absolutely!

You Know You're a Democrat When....

• You believe the NY Times and the Washington Post are iconoclasms of great journalism
• You believe that Bart Simpson would be every parents dream if only his community showed him more love, understanding, affection and support..
• Someone says "count your blessings", and you start making a list of government agencies
• You’re against capital punishment but support abortion (and, upon request, can provide documented research material explaining the rationality of the contradiction)
• The bulk of your economic policy conversations start or end with “It’s only fair….”
• You get your nightly news from Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert, or NBC
• You believe that NBC is actually a legitimate "News Station"
• The bulk of your foreign policy conversations start with “I went to get gas and…”
• You are "moved" by the words of a politician
• You favor free speech, except for the ugly words about minorities, the disabled, the poor, "undocumented workers," or endangered species
• You believe the phrase “the glass ceiling” increases the intellectual value of a conversation
• You believe the axis of evil is Bush and his ilk
• You believe Jimmy Carter should be on Mt. Rushmore and Michael Moore is an American hero
• You drive an SUV with a "go green" bumper sticker
• Your answer to every question is "higher taxes" so long as you're not the one paying
• You’ve tried to argue that poverty wouldn’t be an issue if only the rich people would redistribute their wealth
• You’ve tried to argue that global poverty wouldn’t be an issue if only the rich people of America would redistribute their wealth
• You forwarded the email "An Angry American with an Idea" to all your friends and have convinced yourself that it makes perfect sense
• You support PETA and Greenpeace, but still eat beef, fish, lamb, and wear leather garments
• You’ve tried being a vegan at least once and are convinced you experienced enlightenment
• You utter the phrase “There ought to be a law” at least twice a month
• You think Al Gore invented the internet
• You think Al Gore invented blogs too
• You think rich people actually do get richer off people who have no money
• You actually expect to collect Social Security

I only came up with a handful of these and pulled the rest from here and there and around the internet. ;-)

Share 'em if you got 'em!

Results of the Final Presidential Debate

Overall, the best debate thus far, hands down.

Bravo to Bob Shieffer – great job moderating the debate. He asked good questions (could have done without the VP question again) but he essentially stayed out of the discussion but to ask the questions, allow follow-ups and redirects and he kept the conversation flowing.

OVERALL: Some sharp exchanges tonight but, will the results sway independent votes to the right? In majority, I think not. People needed to see McCain CRUSH Obama on the issues; all Obama really needed to do was stay afloat and respond to the issues. He’s eloquent, he can do that. A lot of effort from McCain that came a little too late in my opinion. By no means was this McCain’s last chance to close the gap but a stronger performance was needed – particularly in the last 20 minutes which is what most tend to remember. Ronald Reagan was behind in the polls during his first term up until the week before the election so, I wouldn’t close the books on McCain just yet. Side note: what a blunder in speaking to Palin and autism when her child suffers from down syndrome. Wowzahs….

AYERS AND ACORN: I strongly disagreed with other Republicans who felt McCain needed to confront Obama with allegations regarding Ayers and ACORN. Not a good strategy. Why? Because the intent of the debate isn’t to solidify Republican votes (already outraged by the allegations) but to sway independent votes and leaning undecideds from the left… and a) Ayers and ACORN aren’t the key issues for these segments and b) confronting Obama on non-key issues during a televised debate gave Obama an opportunity to eloquently and calmly talk his way out of it, which he did. Allegations are just that and now, that card has been played.

SUPREME COURT JUSTICES: I would have liked to hear more on this topic because it bears huge impact on the next four years since the next President will likely be electing more than one Justice to the bench. In fact I don’t believe that enough emphasis has been placed on this issue from either campaign. On elections, McCain said he’s against litmus tests and would elect a Justice based on his/her record of adhering to strict interpretations of the constitution and would not elect based on political ideology. First, I don’t like the use of the verbiage “litmus test.” It’s overused and overplayed; and second, McCain should have HAMMERED Obama when Obama “suggested” that he would elect a Justice who shared the same core values. That is a dangerous relationship and puts the value of our highest legal system at risk.

THE ECONOMY: For the first time, McCain finally said “I am not Bush.” I’ve been wanting him to shout this out to the heavens and the people for quite some time now. It goes without saying: he needed to do this much earlier on in the campaign. I think McCain did a much better job than previously of calling out specifics – specific programs he supported, plans for reform, and specific programs he would cut (I would have been in heaven if he had addressed welfare specifically - screw the hatchet, bring on the blow torch!).

I am a huge proponent of free trade and would have liked to have heard McCain push Obama more on his position with NAFTA and other FTA’s and I also think he should have pushed Obama more on previous statements regarding energy independence and specifically, his shifting support of Nuclear energy.

EDUCATION: On outlying specifics of his education plan – I think this was a slam dunk for McCain. State taxes need to be applied more appropriately and reform is necessary BEFORE federal funding is injected into a broken system. Personally, I’m against having more federal government involved in our education system that state government.

HEALTHCARE: I said this after the first (or second) debate, McCain needed to address DIRECTLY the allegation that 20million will be dropped from their employer based healthcare plans under his proposed healthcare plan. This is a critical point, and again, like a fart in the wind, it just soaked up the air and blew right by him. He missed the opportunity. He needed to say ‘Your 20milliion estimation is completely wrong Senator Obama. You keep wanting to throw that number out there to sway middle class voters but this is why it’s wrong and this is why it’s misleading [dot, dot, dot].” And, he also should have detailed his plan clearly and spoke directly to the large part of his healthcare plan which includes system REFORMS and oversight - two key things that would stem discrimination drops, pre-existing condition drops and help address the inflated 20million number (which btw: INCLUDES a proportion of the people who are CURRENTLY UNINSURED). And also for the record, there is no evidence to suggest that even without reform and oversight, any forced drops (for discrimination or other) would occur under McCain's healthcare plan. Having said that, he needs to remember to talk to his plan outside of refundable credits and a free market. Similar to the housing debacle, free market movement with reform and strict oversight would have steered us away from the economic mess we find ourselves in.

There you have it. A good debate but I felt myself reaching for more and the "more" never quite came.

So, who won?

Well clearly....Joe the Plummer!

The Fate of General Motors

Interesting article in BW about GMs current financial crisis and the fate of its future. Particularly within the last 6 months, the books have gone from really bad to frighteningly scary. Some see a potential merger with Chrysler – a monopoly in my view (of financial and managerial failure) – others wonder of a GM bailout, some just see GM as we know it, going the way of the do-do.

The GM 5-point [failed] Plan:
Goals:
- Increase GM US Market to share to 33%
- Improve customer satisfaction as evidenced by points of market share, not fractions

Strategy:
- Implement innovate and proven marketing techniques
- Raise market share 1 percentage point in each of 5 key areas [customers, dealers, employees, salespeople, retirees]
- Remake corporate image as a leader by acting rather than re-acting
- Change focus of advertising from distress to aspirational

Note: GM adds that loss of market share experiences is the result of diminished image of GM in the marketplace. [no kidding]

Let's briefly talk about the success of it's 5-point plan...Almost every one of GM's vehicle lines has lost market share since 2000 if not earlier (except Cadillac which actually had a lift between 2000 and 2008). While most vehicle warranties have been improved, GM vehicles simply aren’t built as well as Honda, today’s Toyota, or even Ford (while they also have their problems).

GMs non-SUV/Sport utility market share in the US went from 42% back in 1970 to just 22% in 2005, while Honda and Toyota each went up 14 and 11% respectively. By 2007, GM shares sank another 2.5%.

Some would agree that GMs globalization strategies in the last few years, trying to combat the movement of DaimlerChrysler and Ford in Europe and China, have been ‘questionable’ as well and, for many parts, undermining due to poor product lineup.

Looking at the goals and strategies laid out in the 5-point plan, it's fair to say they've fallen short on just about every bullet point (though Hummer and Cadillac divisions did come out with some nice ads thanks to Mondernista and other agencies..). But, 33% market share? How realistic was that given the steady sales decline, changes in environmental concerns, changes in gas and oil prices, not to mention resource allocations (manufacturing warehouse locations, suppliers and parts), management and union-issues bloating the company? Not very. That's quite a list of things prohibiting a flailing company of GMs size from regaining their once 33% foothold in the market. Even the most brilliant marketing tactics won't overcome management ignorance, poor quality parts at higher prices, or the $60 it costs to fill up your tank twice a week.

So how does GM stay afloat?
Can a private equity investor or billionaire financier buy-out the fallen company and turn it around (like Kirk Kerkorian who has knocked on GM’s door more than once already)?

Should GM focus solely on it’s legacy lines and sell-off everything else?

Since the popular thought movement to hybrid-thinking and “green technology”, and growing aversion to concepts like “gas-guzzling” and “air-polluting” vehicles, will demand for SUV’s and sport utilities – the bulk of GMs former cash flow – ever come back?

Finally, who’s to blame? UAW – Rick Wagoner and the GM Board - management at all levels – or, the shareholders?

The Economics of Tax Cuts versus Obama’s Plan to “Tax the Rich”

Obama’s plan is to increase taxes on those who make more than 250k per year, or rather, tax the rich folks who get richer under a Republican tax policy, while the poor get poorer. This is what the democrats sing anyway in order to tug at the emotional strings of middle America and those even less fortunate. But, let’s evaluate this tune.

• One of the major purposes of tax cuts is to generate tax revenues – how? – by encouraging people to take their money out of tax shelters and tax-free securities and invest that money in something that will benefit the individual investor, stimulate economic growth and create jobs (i.e., investing in equity capitalization for large institutions, small businesses, startups and new enterprises, etc.). In plain speak, the people with the capital to do so – move their money into company stocks, for example.

When companies have more capital they produce more, they innovate, they expand, they reach further into the market and in turn, create more jobs for the lower and middle classes. All of these things help move our economy and our country forward. So, why didn't the Bush tax cuts move our economy forward(?) you might ask. Because good tax policies need to be part of a strong holistic economic policy package (foreign and domestic), predicated upon strong oversight and strong relationships with other foreign countries, among other things.

• Under the great Ronald Reagan, who put forth one of the largest tax cuts amidst cries from the left of ‘tax cuts for the rich’, tax revenues increased more than they ever had with people in the largest income brackets paying not only a larger amount of taxes than before, but a higher share of all taxes than before.

Wait, the rich had the largest tax cut but then had an increase in taxes?? This doesn’t make sense(!) say the left. Sure it does. First the tax policies of Reagan, Bush (and McCain) do not cut taxes per say but rather, they cut tax rates. Second, income is not a fixed amount during economic change - whether you make 35k per year or 350k per year. Economic change does not simply affect one class of folk for the better and another class for the worse. During an economic downturn, everyone hurts. On the flip side, when economic activity is stimulated and the economy expands, and incomes and employment rise, so do tax revenues. Those in higher income brackets start bringing in more income thereby increasing the total taxes they pay as well. So, they make more and pay even more in taxes despite a tax rate cut. Simple economics.

The real test of an economic policy is whether or not it can produce a rising tide that lifts all boats (Thomas Sowel, a fellow at the Hoover Institution wrote).

Obama wants to raise dividend and all capital gains taxes on those who make 250k or more. First, I don’t know if this is per person or per household but 250k per year certainly does not make one wealthy particularly since most people have to work their way up to that point after many years of hard work and paying off debts (i.e., school loans, business loans, children through college, etc.).

Liberals say that these tax increases do not and will not affect lower income families. Really? I beg to differ. In simplistic terms - every company needs capital. Capital equals investment. Because Obama’s plan to tax dividends penalizes equity investment like stocks and mutual funds and rewards debt investment such as bonds, company stocks are devalued and stocks are devalued relative to bonds. This goes back to the point earlier about the major purpose of tax cuts. Under Obama's plan, accountants and bankers across the country, are going to recommend individuals start moving their money away from stocks and mutual funds in order to maximize their investments. Schwab has already started advising investors as such in prep for an Obama Presidency.

The bottom line: I simply can’t believe that devaluing stock prices (and thereby US stock values) for any American business and its stock holders – is a good thing, either for economic growth and prosperity or for the middle income, working class.

Obama's "Tax Cut" is Income Redistribution

I pulled this from RCP....the reality
*********************************************************
During his Fox News interview with Bill O'Reilly, Sen. Barack Obama responded to one question where the statistics contradicted his position by saying that "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics." He then went on to say that 95 percent of Americans would get a tax break under his economic plan. That's ironic, because his comment on "damned lies and statistics" is the perfect commentary on his own plan. Taken with Sen. Joe Biden's novel definition of patriotism, Team Obama is making an argument that Americans have never bought.

The statistics speak for themselves. Only 62 percent of Americans pay federal income tax, meaning that 38 percent get a 100 percent refund of any taxes withheld. So Mr. Obama's 95 percent that will receive money from the government includes roughly 33 percent of Americans who pay no income tax. One-third of Americans pay no income taxes yet would receive a government check of perhaps $1,000 or more.

That is pure income redistribution. Some pundits argue that this is Keynesian demand-side economics. It is not. Having the government take money from business entities or affluent individuals and giving it to those who pay no federal income taxes is not Keynesian. It's Marxist.

American voters don't buy Team Obama's arguments. A recent Gallup poll shows that 53 percent of Americans believe that Mr. Obama would raise their taxes. A recent Zogby poll shows a majority of Americans understand that raising taxes will hurt the economy.

Energy prices have pounded the U.S. economy. The recent woes on Wall Street have further shaken our weakened economy. Certain pillars of our economy, such as productivity gains and American ingenuity, continue to be powerful economic assets. But the current debt situation, spending trends, the cost of combating global terrorism, along with the energy crisis, leaves our economy in a truly precarious position.

Most credible economists warn that raising taxes during an economic downturn only makes the situation worse. Given our current economic situation, Mr. Obama's tax plan is the equivalent of pouring gasoline on a fire.

Then we come to the Team Obama fantasy that the Obama plan would cut taxes for most Americans. Yes, Mr. Obama says he will cut rates for lower-income Americans, but will more than offset that by raising taxes on dividends, capital gains, higher incomes, corporations, estates, and payrolls. But most Americans own stock, either directly or through their IRA, 401k or union pensions. Those Americans on Main Street who own mutual funds, own a house or have other investments will be punished by a capital gains tax increase.

Businesses and corporations do not pay taxes; we do. Businesses don't have huge piles of money sitting in the closet that they simply turn over to government when taxes increase. For every dollar that you increase taxes on a business, they simply increase their prices by a dollar. Who then pays the tax? We do. We do, when the product that we bought last week for $20 suddenly costs $21.

Mr. Obama's plan for universal health care and increased spending on just about everything costs hundreds of billions of dollars. To keep his promises to provide those things while eliminating the deficit and giving checks to lower-income families, he will have to raise taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars. But if lower-income Americans receive a check for $1,000 under the Obama plan yet have to pay $2,000 more when buying food and clothes, they are worse off.

Affluent Americans have not had a tax holiday during the Bush administration. Most analysts agree that the affluent pay more under Mr. Bush. In 2000, the top 1 percent of earners paid less than one-third of all income tax; now they pay 40 percent. The affluent already carry more of the burden.

The Debate Drinking Game

On a separate, more fun note: my friend Dan sent me a ‘drinking game’ on Tuesday in prep for the debate and sadly while I had class, had I been able to play I would have ended out the night stone sober…

The Rules:

Take a drink when McCain says...

• Doesn't understand
  
• Unrepentant terrorist
• Get off my lawn
• Bear DNA
• Make them famous

Chug if McCain manages to look Obama in the eye.
Buy the bar a round if he looks Obama in the eye and then doesn't punch him in the throat!

Obviously he's not a McCain supporter....
Now….if I had had time, I would have devised my own drinking game:

The Rules:

Take a drink when Obama says...

• Rich get richer
• Golden parachutes
• The great depression
• The Republicans did it OR McCain did it
• Out of touch
• I wrote a letter
  

Chug if Obama manages not to stutter following a question on foreign policy that doesn't involve Iraq. Buy the bar a round (or chug twice) every time Obama repeats exactly what McCain just said when answering a foreign policy question that doesn't involve Iraq.

Getting ready for the next and last debate, share your thoughts or post suggestions for any new "drinking rules" ;-)

Round 2 of the Presidential Debates

I just finished watching MSNBC’s online video stream of Tuesdays debate and I have to say: not all inspiring, much of the same (but with more detail), too much party jabbing from both sides, few questions that were new, and Brokaw’s constant reminding of the “time contract” was very annoying.

New revelations: McCain is obviously much more comfortable speaking in a town hall format and the McCain ‘my friends’ colloquialism has got to go.

Some believe that McCain needed to engage Obama in a "character debate" of sorts. Subtly done, I think it could have worked but Tuesday night’s forum just wasn’t very forgiving there - too personal, too close to the audience,...and so McCain was smart to leave that off the table.

On Obama's performance
Strong lead, but he seemed to come apart a bit in the second half particularly during the discussion on Iran, Israel, and Russia. With regard to meeting leaders of enemy territories, he held his ground very well. *blasted* Good rebuttal on his healthcare plan and tax policies (though I’ve read that the touted financial benefits of his healthcare plan is all a lot of hooey and I'm totally against his tax policies). Still, he spoke to them well and sounded convincing – and let’s face it, that’s really the crux of winning elections: who sounds more convincing, who sounds more knowledgeable, and who appears to have the stronger character.

Surprises of the night
I was surprised to hear Obama mention 9-11 and before the Republican candidate; usually 9-11 is a key talking point for Republicans since it is a tie-back to our foreign policy platform and National defense.. I was not happy to hear Obama talk about how Bush could have rallied the people better; frankly, that just pissed me off.

I was surprised at Obama’s show of clear support for investing in Nuclear power plants – I specifically remember Obama stating that he was not a supporter during the party races. I suspect that he truly is not but recognizes it is a necessary component of a solid alternative energy plan and that it sits well with the majority of alternative energy supporters.

I was annoyed by Obama’s insistence that oil drilling is somehow the entirety of McCain’s plan for energy independence despite the list of alternative fuel sources McCain had already espoused.

And finally...
I am sick of hearing Obama and co blame the Republicans for the state of the economy. First, I believe Clinton before Bush, signed off on deregulatory legislation. Second, McCain didn't just support flagrant deregulation but rather open market movement with, key ingredient here, strict oversight, among other things - much of which was voted down by Democratic leaders. McCain also voted against Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exemptions.

And I'll also note that Republicans lost majority seats in both the House and Senate two years ago when supposedly Obama touted the dangers of deregulation. A) De-regulation was in progress long before then and b) obviously Obama did not have the leverage or the political weight to pull his own party as a Senator.

On McCain’s performance
He seemed much more relaxed than he was two weeks ago: his talking points were more succinct, he introduced one or two new things, he answered the questions that were asked, he was direct, he defended his positions more clearly and had some decent rebuttals for position on policy. Overall, he did a better job of connecting with the audience.

But he still falters on one key area – his facts. And no, Obama-ites - I don’t mean misstatements or lying – I mean utilizing more facts in his talking points. Forget about the finger pointing, use numbers and specific examples – and lots of them! McCain needed to be more engaging with regard to specifics – heathcare policy (he did OK here), tax policy – the specifics (he started out well but Obama got the last word and essentially wiped out his efforts), economics (the crisis, the bailout, the result). The people need to hear specifics – numbers and specific examples citing economic cause and effect.

With regard to voting record: on almost every issue where Obama pointed to McCain’s record of voting against a position (insurance for children, stricter institutional regulations, alternative energy, etc) – McCain needs to be very explicit as to why he voted the way he voted. He’s running on a platform of pork spending and earmarks and he needs to speak to those “specifics” when it comes to his voting record - i.e., funding for a new bicycle path(?) and others like it that Democrats slipped into the bailout bill. In this case, obviously McCain couldn’t vote down the bailout bill but he needs to point out those specifics and not just talk to it. A good strategy would be to have 2 or 3 for one debate and 2 or 3 more for the next debate.

And finally...
I’m also tired of hearing McCain and co blame the democrats fo...wait, nevermind. I actually can sit and play the blame game against the Democrats ALL DAY LONG. ;-) I know - how one-sided of me...

Road to the White House – Electoral Vote Predictions

Less than one month to go until election day and it's time to make our predictions. Time sure does fly doesn't it?!?!

Here's where the EVs currently stand:
Republicans:
have 163 Electoral Votes
need 107 Electoral Votes

There are:
9 undecided States
115 Electoral Votes up for grabs

Here are my predictions.....

Best Case:
Elephants [274]: winning swing states CO (narrow, narrow margin), FL, IN, MO, NC, NV, OH, VA,
Asses!! [264]: NH

Worst Case:
Elephants [213]: winning swing states IN, MO, NC, VA
Asses!! [325]: CO, FL, NH, NV, OH

And of course, my fingers are crossed for the Best Case scenario. In fact, this will likely be my final prediction pending results of the next round of debates.

Share your thoughts and post your predictions.

Biden versus Palin: The VP-selects Duke it Out

First of all, I think Palin did well tonight…but she could have done better, particularly in the first 20 minutes. She spent much too much time responding to some of Biden’s more minor points and not enough time answering the question at hand. A key strength of Palin’s nomination and allure is her ability to straight talk and she needs to stay on that path. A key point there is being direct in answering questions – whether or not she fully knows the answer. With Biden following Palin and answering the moderator’s questions first, he looked stronger and more focused.

Note to McCain and Co…Always, always, always,..answer the question first then move on to rebuttal points.

Having said that, I have to say I was extremely disappointed with the moderator’s performance tonight. Ifil asked good questions but I felt she was clearly leaning in a direction that gave Biden an edge in the debate. On key issues such as healthcare, deregulation, and taxes - Biden had an opportunity to rebut Palin’s initial response but in his rebuttals he continuously threw in misstatements of facts and contrived numbers with no inkling of legitamacy behind them - like the 20 million people who will get dropped from their insurance plan as a result of McCain’s healthcare plan – but then Ifil didn’t allow Palin a rebuttal. When a VP-select makes as many erroneous statements as Biden did in tonight’s debate, how can she not allow for a rebuttal? Ridiculous.

Throughout the debate she gave Biden second rebuttals and final word (and in many cases the only rebuttal) before moving on to the next question. And the problem with that is that once something damaging is said and there is no one to correct the gross misstatement of facts, it’s “out there.” And the people don’t forget.

Major thumbs down to Ifil but I’ll add that Palin also failed in this regard because she should have stepped-up to the mic and insisted on responding to some of Biden’s “facts of fiction”.

On troop funding, Palin should have resoundingly stated McCain’s history in supporting our military. She should have directly responded to Biden's multiple references of McCain voting against one troop funding bill that Obama supported – Reality: he didn't vote against it, he abstained from the vote but noted his clear disapproval of the bill and urged Bush to veto the bill not simply because it included a timetable but because it included a very short, unrealistic, and dangerous withdrawal timetable. And btw: many were against that piece of it as well and McCain felt that abstaining was the right thing to do because of that piece of it. I’ll also note that Obama actually did vote against a troop funding bill because there was no timetable which goes directly to the same point that Biden was trying to make against McCain. Palin needed to throw the facts back to Biden and the people watching rather than let these misperceptions from the Biden-camp linger. She should have made it very clear that McCain’s record has unequivocally supported troop funding and our active duty military and military veterans in general (except when pork, absurdities or nonsensical demands were tied to the passing of those bills). Palin needed to hit that message home and she didn’t.

So, who won tonight’s VP debate? I hate to say it but I think Biden did – due in no small part to the moderator who, to me, appeared to show clear bias towards Biden in her management of response times and rebuttals to key issues. But... I do believe Palin came out ahead from where she started prior to the debate. Her approval numbers of late have been dropping like bombs and I think she helped herself and the McCain camp tonight with a strong performance. Kudos to Palin. A big boo for Ifil; and all my silent curses to Biden.

Round 1 of the Presidential Debates

I watched the debate and I’ve read through the transcripts. The result: McCain came out ahead. It may not have been out of the ballpark, but he landed enough distance hits to potentially get a lift in the numbers (or good momentum in prep for the VP 10/2 debate).

Here’s the breakdown: McCain kicked Obama’s ass on every issue but the bailout package. On this he broke even – maybe a little under even but generally speaking, McCain responded to Obama’s criticisms pretty well and even put Obama on the defensive during the first 30 minutes on an issue that is supposed to be Obama’s trump card in this race.

What needed to happen tonight from both sides: Obama needed to show voters that he is the best choice to be commander-in-chief in foreign policy and affairs. McCain had a much bigger fence to jump: he needed to show Obama as the naive student of political foreign affairs, he needed to continue to separate himself from the last 8 years of the Bush administration, and he needed to be able to respond to the economic bailout issue without sinking himself because even though this debate was supposed to focus on foreign policy, we all knew questions regarding the bailout were going to be raised.

The Economy
The debate started with talks on the economy and particularly the $700 billion bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. As for whether or not each candidate would support the proposed recovery plan, fact is: responses from both candidates sucked since they each avoided an answer entirely other than to say “well I think I would.”

Baaaah little sheep.

But here was the key lead question [paraphrasing]: “As President, what are you going to have to give-up in order to pay for the exorbitant costs of the bailout recovery plan?”

McCain focused on cutting government spending to help fan the cost of the bailout package while trying to put an emphasis on the fact that cutting ~$18billion in earmarks and pork spending impacts not only direct funding for wasteful government programs but also corrupt spending and activity across government agencies that go unaccounted for. Earmarks represent only 2-3% of the total deficit and $18 billion plus give or take another $XX billion obviously won’t cover the $700 billion atop the planned tax cuts. I would have liked to hear McCain site 1-2 additional examples beyond simply earmarking and government corruption and think McCain would have positioned himself much better overall given the strong voter focus on the economy. But, he did suggest a spending freeze which, though a fail-safe answer, is still an entirely reasonable proposition.

Having said that, Obama in my opinion missed the mark entirely. Before I elaborate, I’ll say this: it’s important when listening to both candidates that you stay focused on ‘connecting all the dots’ of what they say and how they respond to the question. It’s obvious (and most of us already recognized this) – Senator Obama undeniably is born of the gift of gab. And after watching the first presidential debate and hearing his responses and reading (and re-reading) the transcripts – I realized how easy it is to forget about connecting all the dots when you’re listening to him speak. Particularly because everything is intelligently worded and bundled into a pretty, seemingly non-politicians package. But the reality as I see it – most of his dots when you lay them out just don’t connect.

Obama mentioned that there obviously would be areas of his plan that would have to be delayed or simply wouldn’t get done but there are some things that simply must be done. An interesting way to avoid responding to the question but in light of his response, I would have liked Lehrer to ask the Senator how he plans to pay for the recovery plan while he continues advocating the provision of tax cuts to 95% of American families, all the while investing in alternative energy: wind, solar, biodesel, etc., all the while pouring out an additional $800 billion into new social programs, and all the while providing healthcare coverage to every American – and no doubt – every non-American…I think he also mentioned education but that probably falls under one of the $800 billion worth of more government social programs…(a top the $xx billion in completely worthless social programs that already exist).

Supposedly, where there are line items that cannot be done as a result of the bailout costs (still not sure what these are), tax bails, alternative energy, healthcare, and social programs to help the “middle class” are all the things that must be done.

So, OK…when you’re suffering through terrible economic woes, this is all the fluff you want to hear and need to hear. But when you add up both economic plans, sure…McCain falls short a bit but at least he stated an economic freeze which is far more realistic than Obama’s “new math” economic plan all verbally dialed up into a fools package.

Pretty little ducks all laid out in a row. Not.

Foreign Policy
Here’s undoubtedly where McCain kicked Obama’s proverbial ass. Obama did a good job of shedding light on the fact that he is intelligent and fairly well versed on some of the issues; but more importantly McCain shed a lot more light on Obamas fundamental inability to connect all the little dots in order to understand the broader picture – a necessity for developing and supporting strategic and tactical initiatives. McCain whipped him on the discussion regarding our strategy in Afghanistan with respect to success in Iraq and disbursement of troop volume in Iraq; he consistently (and successfully) called out Obama’s lack of understanding of the domino effect between the issues in the Middle East; he successfully portrayed Obama’s understandings as being at best, naïve; and McCain consistently put Obama on the defensive on all manners of foreign policy that were raised during the debate to include Russia, Iran and North Korea.

On this, it was critically important for Obama to show voters that he is the man to lead the country in foreign affairs.

And he failed.

For me, the win for round 1 goes to McCain. Not necessarily by a mile but at least by a couple of stretches.

Palin for VP: Brazen or Brash...

Kudos to the McCain camp for keeping the true VP nominee under such tight wraps; another kudos for going against the grain of predictability and thinking outside the box. McCain's decision to select Palin is an interesting one, but I think a smart one. While things can always backfire, the sheer shock factor, coupled with the momentum of curiosity for an unknown governor (and a woman no less), will force the Obama camp to relinquish the spotlight over the coming weeks. If done smartly, this could be a real opportunity for McCain and Co. to capitalize on the publicity and connect with voters with a relevant message.

Now, don't get me wrong - I get some of the anti-Palin sentiment. Some may be inclined to wave a finger and tsk-tsk Palin's nomination, but here's why they should pull back the trigger finger just yet and give a thumbs up:

Briefly side-stepping the fact that she is a woman...
- Palin has solid conservative credentials - something we Repubs knew McCain would need in a running-mate given some of his more 'left-of-center' conservative politics.

- While relatively inexperienced in the core political arena (a quality well-served for baby 'Bama and former President Clinton), Palin is young and still brings more relevant experience (of the executive nature) to the table. Granted, the state of Alaska only has 10 residents but....Palin has also served two terms as mayor and two more as city-councilman. Bottom line: she's not a newbie to the process nor the 'business' of politics. During her political tenure, unlike the democratic President-elect, Palin has actually done things.

On this note, i found it rather amusing, and a downright contradiction, that the Obama camp issued this response upon hearing of Palin's pseduo-nomination:

"Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency"

Anyone else see the irony in that? Right. And so putting a junior senator with now three years of legislative experience, zero legislative accomplishments, and zero foreign policy experience to speak of in the presidency, says what exactly.....His role on the senate foreign relations committee? laughable. I also found interesting the very carefully chosen words "former mayor" - given the fact Palin has been governor since 2006. Obviously intended to steer attention away from her executive experience. How droll. Lefties...

Moving on...

- Palin carries the "anti-stain" of the stereotypical politician; and for the average Joe (or Josephina), has a niche claim that every politician drools over - she is more relatable to the average American. Let's be honest, when most people think of Alaska Northern Exposure and 'homely' come to mind. It's earthy and hard-working, straight-talking, outdoorsy peeps with close relationships and close familial ties. True or not true, perception is power; perception wins elections. Most loyal Republicans aren't going to go left - regardless of whose on the ticket; and Palin's background, combined with her more mainstream libertarian conservatism, just might be what the party needs to reign-in moderate and conservative democrats.

- Corruption and DC politics was a stain on the Bush Administration and his Republican-majority congress. McCain's efforts to vilify those attributes are strengthened in Palin with her efforts to weed out corruption and wipe-out flagrant misuse of government spending in her own state. I read somewhere that she sold a corporate jet on e-Bay for something shy of $3 million to raise money without raising taxes. I'm all for that. She's innovative and thinks outside the box.

Here's some nice propaganda for you on Palin's conservative nature and political POV:

"She is a throwback to the cowboy individualism of Barry Goldwater, a nod to the fiscal policies of Ronald Reagan, and a flag-bearer for the common-sense pragmatism of ordinary working parents everywhere."

- Palin is a union member as is her husband. Though a departure from standard Republican ideals - which generally look on unions with a sense of disregard and loathing (and let's face it, why wouldn't you really...) - having a union-family will resonate more with voters in swing states like MI and IA, heavy in the unions. A side note...Palin also displays the more uncharacteristic qualities of labor unionites, typically reserved for, well... us respectable non-unionites! She's hard-working and yes, actually works. Guess it beats taking an eight hour lunch break cleverly disguised as an eight hour work day...

- Palin, like McCain, talks in plain-speak and has the nerve to bite back which could serve well against a competitor like Biden, known for his manner of directness and occasional tact-lessness.

Now, given the fact that Palin is a woman...
- I don't believe that simply having a woman on the ticket will reign in female voters other than extreme feminists (that's just naive), but a woman or minority on the Republican ticket is an affront to the leftist (and ok, mainstream) perception that Republicans only elect stuffy, old, white-collared, affluent men. And Palin counters any edge Obama has in being a minority. From a diversity standpoint, her nomination will move Republicans in a new direction and put Republicans and Democrats on even keel during the elections. Bravo McCain and Co!

Yes, the fact that she is an unknown will make her vulnerable to media scrutiny and yes, the potential impacts could implode McCain's campaign with the elections only a few short months away. But the typical "what's in your closet" political hoopla can be muted with a smart strategy, open communication and plain-speak: an approach that has served McCain well in recent months with gaining traction among Democrats and swing voters.

Right now, people are very curious, and McCain and Co are well suited to take advantage, spread their message, and drive momentum. Come November, I think they'll prove to be a formidable duo against Obama and Biden.

The Unstoppable McCain

Or, at least he was until last month.

Ok, so obviously I'm behind on my readings. Hmmm.

With the democratic party struggling to find unity and stealing so much of the negative limelight these days - McCain seemed poised to gain a hefty lead over the competition. The DNC has had a lot to deal with: Obama’s recent media plight over his long relationship with a racist Pastor, Clinton’s bumbling misstatement over having to duck under sniper fire in Bosnia, and now with Clinton fending off pressure from Obama’s campaign reps and superdelegates in the DNC to drop out of the race – McCain’s pretty much been living the good life I'd say. Free from media strife, free to run his own campaign, free to relish in the uptick of support.

And then ‘thwack’. Bush’s endorsement.

Now, don't get me wrong - Bush is still pretty popular with the GOP and it comes as no real surprise that Bush has endorsed McCain. In fact, within the upper echelons of the party, I’m sure a lot of conservative peeps were “thrilled” about it – feel it unifies the Republican Party behind McCain. But, McCain also doesn’t have any competition for the Republican primary so an endorsement from the current Republican president isn’t going to give him any boost there; he’s already clinched the nomination. Can Bush help in states like Texas - I doubt it. If McCain can't win over these states without a Bush endorsement - he won't win them over with a Bush endorsement.

However – the general elections are only 1,2,3,...8 months away (and it'll go by quickly) and it goes without saying that Bush is NOT popular with the left. In fact, it wouldn’t be a stretch to say that Bush is vehemently despised by folks on the left. And, generally speaking – not too well liked among independents or the far right either. His approval ratings recently seemed to fluctuate somewhere between 19% and 27%.

So, how much will a Bush endorsement help or hurt McCain’s chances in the general elections? Was this an attempt to unify the GOP behind McCain - and therefore well-timed with DNC candidates being front and center in the media, and just in time for the endorsement hype to die-down before the start of general election campaigning... Does a Bush endorsement strengthen the message that a McCain presidency would be a Bush “three-peat?” Is McCain just setting himself up for heavy fire by everyone else 'to the left'...

Oh, and how stupid was this statement by McCain (outside the White House after Bush’s endorsement):

“I hope that the president will find time from his busy schedule to be out on
the campaign trail with me, and I will be very privileged to have the
opportunity of being again on the campaign trail with him,”

Goodness me-oh-my...

Fiorina: Good or Bad for McCain?

So in the last month or so, there’s been a massive pileup going-on of my weekly Businessweek subscription, and this weekend I finally took some time and starting going through them. I came across an article about some of the latest on McCain’s campaign and was surprised to read that former HP CEO Carly Fiorina, whom I knew had recently supported McCain on the campaign trail, was just appointed to serve as McCain’s public spokeswoman and as a people’s advocate for the RNC. Old news for some, new news for me. Either way, interesting choice though I’m not quite sure yet what to make of it.

The PRO’s:
- She is a marketer and a saleswoman; and very good in both roles

- Fiorina knows how to sell a vision and her skills in this area could really help elucidate McCain’s vision for the future, a point of communication that he's struggled with throughout the primaries. Moreso if O'bama takes the democratic nomination - McCain's campaign message will need to be very clear

- She has a 6-year run on her resume as the former CEO of HP which could strike a chord with like-minded business-folk who respond to innovation and thought leadership

- Some believe that while her leadership with HP ended in embarrassment, the growth strategies that she advocated for and pushed through, were largely responsible for the rising margins and profits that came under her successor (Hurd). Even just one year after her "resignation" HP gained a 4% PC market share lead over Dell and brought in higher reveneues than both Dell and IBM that same year

- Her rise to the top of the corporate ladder, going from secretary to CEO, is both extraordinary and inspiring – particularly for young[er]women working. McCain struggles to win-over the twenty-to-thirty something crowd and particularly young, professional women. Fiorina’s story could give his campaign some leverage with that voter segment


The CON’s:
- She was forced out of her 6-year run as CEO of HP, and her exit was not shall we say an “amiable” one. She was at the center of a merger so contentious, the son of HP's founder came out against it in a public boardroom fight.

- Fiorina is a "straight-talk" kind of gal. Combined with McCain's "let's be real" approach- it's reality overload. People want the real deal from their leaders but people also want to be inspired.

- Her offshore outsourcing policies will be sure to draw heavy fire from states in the northeast all the way down to the bible-belt south where skilled labor industries and programming jobs have been hit hardest thanks to offshore outsourcing. Her management practices along with McCain's "real talk" economics won't go over too well in these states. **I was surprised that McCain put Fiorina on the campaign trail with him in Michigan; a move that will surely bite him in the ass later**

- Though she inherited a monster that was on it's way down when she took over in 1999, Businessmen and investors will remember the troubled 6 year span under her leadership and the relief-day when HP stocks jumped 11% on the announcement of her departure.

- She’s been described in numerous public forums not as a leader who leads, but as a leader who looks to burnish her own image. Her position in McCain’s campaign could be seen as a means to get the ball rolling for her own career in politics – taking away from McCain’s spotlight

- The perceived image of Fiorina’s self-serving nature could perpetuate the notion that the RNC is a party of the rich and of the…well, self-serving

I'm leaning towards this being a not-so-smart move in the broad scheme of things but as yet, I'm still undecided. So, is Carly a wise choice for the McMan (or the RNC for that matter)? Can her business acumen win over Romney supporters? Will business-minded voters turn and run the other way?

Questions, questions..

Going "Anti" for Corporate Social Responsibility

Now before anyone starts thinking I’m a hater of “causes”, I’ll just quickly note that I do believe in giving back and I’ve been a long time supporter and volunteer for a number of organizations like ACS, Gilda’s Club, NAC, and others. I’ll preface my point: I understand that the position of CSR is supposed to be a win-win situation for businesses and customers – businesses profit; the brand gains exposure and increases loyalty by building a relationship premised on conscience and cause; customers feel good, and society feels good for buying-in to it. * Hooray for business and the cause * Where I draw the line at corporate social responsibility is when it flies in the face of “transparency of motive” and I walk away feeling “duped”.

It goes back to that question of, why are you really supporting the cause? Some people think, who cares(!) – at least something good is being done. But I care. I care about disingenuous motivations and false pretenses.

What got me started on this whole raging path is something that happened yesterday. I’m walking down the street through town and have a need to buy some basic home supplies and I see two stores – one has a breast cancer ribbon in the front window and the other doesn’t. I opt for the breast-cancer supporter. * clap, clap, clap for the business * I pick out my things, and when it’s my turn to step up to the counter, I ask about a contribution jar or percentage of profit per item that goes to the breast cancer foundation. They tell me, and I quote, “We don’t contribute financially but we do believe in the cause.”

…Heh?

Maybe you think I’m overreacting but I tell you I’ve run into these scenarios many, many times and I am infuriated no less each time. Had I known the ribbon display was merely that - I would have gone to the second store whose prices are slightly cheaper. Clearly, the ribbon in the window was meant to draw me in as a customer - if they really believed in the cause - they'd do what many do and make a contribution to the cause. But what really gets my blood boiling is the "enviornmental cause". Here’s an example..

Charles Schwab had flown me out for an interview last year and I remember they put me up in the Orchard Garden Hotel – a green hotel near Chinatown, in downtown San Francisco. When I asked the recruiter about it, she gave me a very thoughtful, well-prepared schpiel that Schwab cares about the environment, and they’re doing what they can for their part.

Ok, I’ll bite.

Soy instead of ink, energy-regulated rooms, and recyclable bins (one for paper and one for aluminum)…I have no problem with that. The hotel was small, patterned with brown on brown colors but still trendy-looking in a chic “earthy” way, and my room was fairly comfortable. The major downside – it was also an additional 16 blocks from Schwab headquarters. After what felt like a dizzying 7 hours of interviewing, my mind came back to that “green” hotel and I did a quick review.

- They put me on the cheapest flight available (ok, understandable) but it also had me arriving at midnight, the night before my interview, and they had me flying out less than two hours after my interviews were done. That’s pretty harsh timing to save on a little reimbursement money. I was dead, during and after my interviews

- The airline they chose was so cheap they didn’t even have food on board; not even snack boxes just pretzels. And this was a cross-country flight mind you from Philadelphia to San Francisco

- They didn’t take me out to lunch and introduced me to the quick café in the main lobby

- Most of the standard hotel rooms in downtown San Francisco, for places like the Hyatt or the Marriott, average about $285/ night; the price for going with the Orchard was about $100 cheaper

So I’m thinking about this interview process and it suddenly dawned on me; promoting green wasn’t about social responsibility or supporting a cause – it was about cost-reduction. Like the rest of my trip – it was about minimizing expenses to the nth degree (and I mean going to the bare minimums without sacrificing company image). “Let’s go cheap and since it’s green, let’s play it up.” Admittedly, I was a little ticked.

Everyone wants to jump on the band-wagon of supporting "a cause". But from my review, climate change is a crock and for many businesses, so is asserting “earth-friendly” programs for the sake of the environment.

GE made their big splash with the “ecomagination” project, committing $2 billion to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving energy efficiency by 30 percent by the end of 2008 and 2012, respectively.

Seems to me that it makes perfect senses to invest in innovation and new technology for the future, particularly when you're the profit-hounding GE and one of the largest providers of energy-resource for homes and businesses. Investing in alternative technology that is, in the long term, cheaper to produce is called "smart business".

Toyota is promoting their new “green make-over” project intended to increase sustainability of production operations by emphasizing the role of nature in creating production sites.

All I can say is, weak; very weak.

Dell is beefing up their efforts to become “the greenest” technology company around by building-up it’s recycling program and “building earth-friendly PC’s”.

Why don’t companies just say what this is all really about – cost reduction for profitability and growth, or, in many cases - pretending they give a darn to drive loyalty and spend for customers who do give a darn. Was that so hard? Let’s talk about Dell’s “green” efforts – first of all, traditional computer parts are power-sucking nightmares and people are looking for power sustainability in their PC products. To achieve this – you have to look for alternatives; it’s a no-brainer. But to promote this as an earth-friendly project is ludicrous – the packaging box is a recycling nightmare (meaning it can’t even be recycled), not one component of their PC’s is made of re-cycleable material and the mercury contained in laptops can damage the CNS. What’s so “earth-friendly” about it??

Now there’s even the CRRA - Corporate Responsibility Reporting Awards; an international event with a prestigious gala evening, ceremonies, parties, and awards with titles like “Best Corporate Responsibility Fiscal Report” and “Best Carbon Disclosure”.

And guess what SF-based company was on the list of attendees. Yea, really.