Obama Unwittingly Helps McCain's Fundraising

There has been much made recently about the differential between Democratic and Republican fund-raising for the Presidential election. John McCain is lagging significantly behind the Democratic candidates due to the contentious race for the Democratic nomination. Surprisingly, I believe Barack Obama came to McCain’s rescue today. In a “major” speech about the economy, Obama, the presumptive nominee, stated that the solution to the country’s economic problems was more regulation. He proposed a tax cut to “working families”. Of course, that already exists in the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. In proposing more regulation by the government, Obama has begun the process of filling McCain’s election coffers by stimulating donations from almost every business in the country. If there is anything a business doesn’t like, it is the federal government telling them how to do their jobs.

The two Democratic candidates are locked in a heated battle. On the nasty side, they continue to delve deeper into accusations and nit-picking and it is wearing the voters thin. On the other hand, they battle by trying to out-promise each other, thereby buying the votes with bribes. It is an interesting paradox that if a candidate walked up to you and offered you $100 cash to vote their way, they could go to jail. Yet it is perfectly legal for them to offer you thousands of dollars in government money for the same goal. What no one seems to realize is that the money they offer comes from tax revenues. Obama has already offered up something like one trillion dollars in new spending proposals. Someone will have to pay for his programs. It will be people who work, thereby removing the incentive to work.

We have all heard someone say, “Why work harder? The government is going to take it, anyway.” There is some tipping point where people lose the incentive to try. That is the very reason communism fails as a form of government. It flies in the face of human nature. The reason the United States became the most powerful economic nation in history in only roughly 200 years is because there is incentive to work and produce. If you work hard or come up with a better product, YOU live in a better home, drive a better car, take a nicer vacation, not everyone else. In communism, everyone works down to the lowest level at which you can maintain your job (kind of like the US Civil Service). When liberals take more money from working people for socialist-like economic redistribution programs, they remove the incentive for people to work harder. A graduated tax table does the same thing. Graduated tax brackets are the driving force behind loopholes and tax cheating to reduce income levels on paper.

So, as the Democratic candidates continue to promise bigger government (meaning more taxes and more regulation), they spur contributions to the McCain candidacy from business and people who earn income. McCain should send Obama a thank you card.

Embellishment and Hillary Clinton Fatigue

How is it that any politician running for national office thinks that they can get away with embellishment, lying, or misleading statements in the modern age of communications? How Hillary Clinton can relate a story of “running under sniper fire” when video exists of the actual events is beyond me. In recent history, Dan Rather was run out of town for forgeries, Barack Obama’s minister’s sermons were exposed, Gary Hart had pictures of his affair exposed, Eliot Spitzer had his prostitution usage exposed, Nixon had tapes in the White House, Bill Clinton left evidence on a dress, Kwame Kilpatrick had 10,000 text messages, and on and on. There is virtually nothing that happens of consequence that doesn’t leave some trail of evidence.

Hillary Clinton started out behind the eight ball. People already had, at least independents and conservatives, an opinion of her as a scheming, no trick too dirty political opportunist. Her campaign had to be, in part, an effort to convince people that the impression was false and that she was genuine. Moving to New York to be elected certainly hadn’t helped that view. Everyone, even Democrats, knew that the move was political opportunism. The Clintons always complained about the “politics of personal destruction” and then were the foremost practitioners of it. Hillary Clinton had to run an almost perfect campaign in order to offset that image. To the Democrats, she was the “heir apparent” to the Presidency and the primaries were to be a formality (thus, the unimportance of super-delegates). In fact, the super-delegates were supposed to get the nomination process over more quickly by squashing any second place usurper who dared to make it a contest. What the Democratic leadership had not counted on was the appeal of someone other than Hillary Clinton. Make no mistake, Barack Obama is an appealing candidate, but a large part of his appeal is that he is NOT Hillary Clinton. Recent polls have shown that 19% of Obama supporters would vote for John McCain if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee. That speaks volumes about the opinion of Democrats. In the Michigan primary, without Barack Obama on the ballot, almost 40% of Democrats did not vote for Hillary Clinton. They preferred “none of the above”. Many Democrats have been dismayed with what the Clintons did to the Democratic Party for a long time but always held their tongues because they were convinced that Hillary would be President. The haters of President Bush feel the Clintons were responsible for him being elected. Now that there is another viable candidate who is actually leading her in delegates, the truth is coming forward. There are a lot of Democrats who don’t like her in a big way and never did. Combine that with the fact that Republicans loath her and it makes for a tough candidate to elect. If she was winning big, the Democrats who dislike her would hold their noses and vote for her but now they have an alternative and they are jumping on that train.

The latest Bosnia embellishment is not surprising given her history of similar episodes but it is more revealing of the Democratic Party as a whole as they use it to again justify why so many would support anyone else. In a column just before New Hampshire I wrote that I didn’t think Obama had much of a chance. I clearly underestimated the undercurrent of Democrat desire to get away from the Clintons.

Teamwork and Stability

One thing that has become fairly apparent over the last few years is that teamwork and stability are pretty important in the success of an organization. There are some really outstanding examples of how not to manage an organization.

When Daniel Snyder bought the Washington Redskins, he clearly was a very successful businessman but just as clearly knew nothing about how to run a sports franchise. He thought that putting together a bunch of talented individuals from different systems would produce a great team. His teams struggled mightily despite the huge payrolls. His free agent acquisitions were routine busts. When he hired a proven coach who seemed to be turning the franchise around, Marty Schottenheimer, Snyder fired him after winning his final seven or eight games to hire Steve Spurrier from the University of Florida. There must be something cursed about Schottenheimer as he was fired from San Diego after a 14-2 season. In both cases, Steve Spurrier in Washington and Norv Turner in San Diego went on to have decidedly worse records than Schottenheimer. Snyder finally hired the legendary Joe Gibbs back and allowed several poor seasons before the Redskins organization got itself back together. Only a coach the stature of Gibbs would have been allowed to do that. When Gibbs retired this year, most of the organization was retained and little free agent action has taken place. It seems that finally Snyder has finally learned that stability is important.

There is an old saying the “The enemy of good is better” or “The enemy of good is perfect”. No where is that sentiment better represented than in the New York Yankees. Joe Torre wins three world championships and makes the playoffs in every year but one of his long tenure and he is fired. The Yankees organization laments on the old days when they won all the time. In those days however, you almost needed to be an archaeologist to mark changes in personnel other than pitchers, who generally have a shorter shelf life, anyway. There was stability in the organization and you knew every year that the team would be good. Of course, it always helped to have more money than the U. S. Mint. Mickey Mantle was offered a pay CUT in 1957 because he didn’t win the Triple Crown like he did in 1956. The Steinbrenner family is very similar to Daniel Snyder, and the US government for that matter, in that they feel money is the cure to every problem. They never take into account team chemistry. The best thing that happened to the Yankees in recent history is when they failed to sign Albert Belle who was well known team poison everywhere he went. Belle went to the Orioles and they have never been good since. Look at the response Alex Rodriguez received for one of the best offensive seasons in baseball history; he was booed by fans for the team’s finish. These are the same people who celebrated cheating the Baltimore Orioles out of a playoff game on an erroneous umpire call. It is hard to have empathy for them.

In the military, it is often said that the soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and airmen don’t fight for foreign policy but instead fight for their buddies next to them. It was well known in both Viet Nam and World War II that the replacements were thought of differently than the group that originally deployed together. There was a movie about the new Captain of a US Navy vessel who had his men build a sailboat for the ship. They were all angry about having to do it but another character in the movie recognized that by making the crew mad at him, the Captain had brought them together as a crew. Players and coworkers look out for one another when they have a relationship. Good coaches and executives recognize the need for cohesion. In the movie Remember the Titans, Denzel Washington’s coach character forced his players to learn about one another. Team chemistry is important to any organization and it takes time and stability to establish it. The people who go for the quick fix will always be left behind (and broke).

The Democratic Fondue Pot Melt Down

I have recently began reading the comments section below some of the news stories on the web and have noticed the visceral angst among the Democratic voters about the Clinton/Obama race. To believe the Democratic Party can come together between the September convention and the November election unless they resolve their candidacy issue before the convention might be wishful thinking. The blog commenters are inflamed and displaying a lot of vitriol. It has gotten down to a lot of "yo momma" types of comments. The two sides are building a lot of genuine animosity against the other.

To try to look at the options somewhat rationally, let's look at the likely general election tactics:

Obama versus McCain is a large contrast (young vs old, ultra liberal record vs moderate/conservative record, black vs white, etc.); Clinton vs McCain not quite as much (woman vs man, mostly liberal vs moderate/conservative) and keep in mind that Clinton/McCain have voted the same way many times. The problem Clinton has against McCain in the general election is that all the arguments she uses in the primaries against Obama don't work about McCain. Therefore, she will have to do a 180 and run with Obama's arguments of change. Her arguments of: experience (McCain has a lot more), legislative accomplishments (McCain has a lot more), working on bipartisan bills (McCain again), ability to be Commander in Chief (She isn't in the same zip code) will not sell when looked at closely. Therefore, she shouldn't distance herself from Obama too much because she will have to use his platform of unity/change in the general election. However, by using Obama's platform, she will become another "flip-flopper" in the eyes of the public. Obama would have it easier because he will run on his current platform of unity/change. Obama will have a problem there. His record shows that he always votes with the liberal block and has a record of not supporting bipartisan bills. That makes his "unity/bipartisan" theme a tough sell to make. Additionally, he has been knocked off his pedestal (ironically by the Democrats, not the Republicans) and now appears to be a regular politician. When evaluated as a regular politician, he has almost no accomplishments and negligible experience, when examined closely.

Add to those problems a really bad case of timing. The Democrats have been trying to sing in chorus that the Republicans have a "corruption" theme. However, all the latest scandals (NY governor, Detroit mayor, etc.) have been Democrats. Additionally, their own primary system process is beginning to look corrupt. If you really look at Obama/Clinton, there is much more similarity in their positions than differences. The Democratic Party is destroying itself over little details, egos and personalities. Someone needs to do a sanity check. Howard Dean is really falling down on his job. They are at risk of giving this thing away from within.

How to Effectively Moderate a Debate

I was fantasizing about moderating a Presidential debate the other evening and thought I would reveal portions of my formula for an actually informative debate which, of course, the candidates would hate. I believe people get tired of lame generalities and talking heads waiting for the right opportunity to get in a good sound bite. Of course, that is fueled by the media only talking about the good sound bites in their post-debate analysis.

First, at the beginning of the debate, I would have the candidates stipulate that none of the others were trying to bring down the world as we know it and that the others were not inherently evil people. I would also have them stipulate that THEY, not their respective spouses, were running for office and that whoever won, the spouse would be fine as first whatever. I would have them agree that no one was supporting bad education, less health care, a weaker military, etc.

Second, I would have them agree I could cut them off when they drifted into talking points instead of answering questions. When they answer with "We need a President who can.... (list of generic issues they can spout on about)", the microphone gets turned off. Additionally, no meaningless sound bites (e.g., "We are not going to balance the Social Security system on the backs of the elderly", which sounds great but doesn't mean anything and just wastes time).

Third, I would make them answer questions specifically. When they say "We have to fix the Social Security system", I stop them and make them spell out their specific steps to do it. When they say, "I will bring our troops home", I stop them and ask specifically how and what they will do in Afghanistan and Iraq which will make that possible, or will they just leave those people in the lurch after we committed to them as a country. When they talk about "experience", experience doing what specifically? What did you accomplish or did you you just hang around a long time? "I worked to... (fill in the blank)" is a lot different than "I actually did something". The object is to point out the specific differences in what they propose to do.

Fourth, when they claim a statistic or make an accusation, I stop and ask them to provide proof of their statement. No more made up statistics or vague accusations.

Fifth, no personal stories. When the candidates get a hard question, they always respond with "I met Jane Doe in Smalltown, North Some State, and she... (heart wrenching story)". That is like the news media who, no matter how strong the economy is, can always find someone not doing well so they can criticize the administration. It contributes nothing and allows the candidate to avoid the question.

Sixth, no redirecting questions. None of the "That is a good question but what we should really be talking about is... (stump speech points)". Answer the question or quit wasting our time and shut up.

Final point (to the audience), as soon as the debate is over, turn off the television or change channels. Do not listen to the opposing spin-meisters talk about how great their candidate did. You watched the debate, you heard the candidates, you know what they said. That should be enough.

The Democratic Soap Opera♦

It is really interesting to watch the latest in the Democratic Party nomination process. Barrack Obama still leads in delegates and it is pretty far-fetched to see Hillary Clinton catch him mathematically, given the proportional distribution system the party uses in their nomination process. It is also apparent that the Clinton campaign is getting pretty desperate because they have begun to try to destroy Barrack Obama. I have always found it ironic how the Clintons have always wanted it both ways. When their actions are examined closely, it is either a "vast right wing conspiracy" or "the politics of personal destruction". But every time they find themselves behind the eight ball, their tactic is always to try to destroy anyone who gets in their way (e.g., Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Ken Starr, Kathleen Willey, etc.).

Barrack Obama is facing a tough fork in the road. His campaign has been trying to remain positive and to set a new tone but if he doesn't respond to the Clinton attacks, he will appear weak. Since everyone knows that Clinton will stop at nothing to achieve her ends, making vicious attacks doesn't affect anyone's opinion of her, sadly. However, when Obama fights back, she can claim he was facetious in saying he wanted to run a positive campaign. For her, it is a no lose strategy because without it, her campaign is lost, anyway.

The interesting fact is that, on most substantive issues, there is little to no difference in their respective policies. To see so much blood-letting over no real policy differences just points out the egotism in both candidates. It certainly follows since most people who go into politics tend to be egocentric. If the race really was about issues, it would be much less rancorous.

The real shame in all this is that the Democratic Party is taking an election that should be a walk in the park and are trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.