It appears that Barack Obama, the darling of the Media, has been crowned king by both Europe and the American media. Why? Because he is pretty, sounds nice, is eloquent, charismatic, and young (and dare we forget he is half-black!). I guess the new way to select an American President, the leader of the free world, is to emulate American Idol and create a popularity contest. In none of the descriptors above does policy, experience, judgment, and leadership show up. Do we really want to elect a pretty boy who has shown to be naive, inexperienced, and poor in judgment? The American people must wake up and think about the person they want in the oval office.
Do we want a person because the Europeans love him and want him? Or do we want one of our own?
Mccain
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Sunday, July 27, 2008
When the process becomes the thing
The Process is the Thing
By Paul Herbig
One of the perks of being a columnist is that sometimes you can stray away from the declared theme of your columns. I have been known to mix marketing, business, politics, and social paradigms together. This I will also do today. And being a fairly modest person, if I uncover a law of the universe, I think I have the right to name it after myself:
Herbig’s Law #29: When the Process becomes more important than the output, the entity is in decline.
I once worked for a large computer company that had a very sophisticated product life cycle management system (PLCM). This in itself was not bad, it was positive in that PLCM systems help companies monitor and control the product development process. In theory (and in actuality if correctly achieved), the system allows the company to identify losing products and projects quickly and thus delete them, creating the way to add monies towards development of more likely successful and profitable products. It also served as a mechanism to identify problems in the developing products early so as to be corrected early and not inhibit the development or push back announcement or introductions of new products.
Once upon a time, the document for this company’s PLCM process was several pages. However, as time went on and bureaucracies abounded, and many products went through the PLCM process, new wrinkles and regulations and requirements were added. To understand why, one must remember that the purpose of a bureaucracy is not to succeed, just not fail. And every new requirement was added for the sole purpose of guaranteeing failures would not get into production. Every time a product would be introduced and fail or a hiccup would be seen in the PLCM process, a new set of regulations would be introduced to make certain it would not happen again.
By the time I was hired, the Phase Review process (their name for the PLCM process) was contained in two volumes, each at least 2 inches thick, and an entire set of project managers whose only purpose in life was to make certain these rules were followed exactly. And they were. At every stage of the product’s existence, the overriding question became not “Is it profitable and a successful product?” but “Have you followed the Phase Review Process?” Months and months were followed by years but the process had to be followed. In some aspects, it was successful as the only products that actually succeeded in being introduced were well thought out, crafted, nicely-configured products. The only problem was that they were usually three or four years behind the leaders and could only hope for a small niche market if any. Needless to say, this company is no longer in the industry, having abandoned it shortly after I left.
Another example, this one closer to home.: When US troops first invaded Iraq five years ago, they soon found out it was not going to be a conventional war as roadside bombs and mines started ripping up the thinly armored vehicles. Five years afterwards, the number of sufficiently armored vehicles is still in short supply. Why? Because due to previous decades’ $500 hammers and other exploits, the military procurement process had been heavily revised. Specs must be created. Everyone must have their opportunity to provide input. Suppliers must be checked out for OSHA, EEO, Diversity, EPA, and every other set of initials available. Then bidding is allowed. Afterwards, a winner is declared but then losers can appeal the process. After long (and equitable) review process, bids are finally let. Companies then can begin the production process subject to budget availability. This is an admirable process but one where the output has all been but forgotten: To win a war. In World War II, the Hellcat fighter was created from scratch within a few short months to combat the zero, contracts were let, production began, and planes built. Within two years, the fighter had swept the zeros from the sky. If this were WWII with the same military procurement process available, we would be shaking the hands of the Japanese as they approached the Potomac while still negotiating the finer points of the contract with the designated vendors.
The moral of the story: If the Process dominates in your entity, either revolutionize or bail out, the ship is beginning to list.
Paul Herbig is Managing Partner of Herbig Marketing Associates, a renown national marketing consulting firm, and the former Dean, Ketner School of Business, Tri-State University.
By Paul Herbig
One of the perks of being a columnist is that sometimes you can stray away from the declared theme of your columns. I have been known to mix marketing, business, politics, and social paradigms together. This I will also do today. And being a fairly modest person, if I uncover a law of the universe, I think I have the right to name it after myself:
Herbig’s Law #29: When the Process becomes more important than the output, the entity is in decline.
I once worked for a large computer company that had a very sophisticated product life cycle management system (PLCM). This in itself was not bad, it was positive in that PLCM systems help companies monitor and control the product development process. In theory (and in actuality if correctly achieved), the system allows the company to identify losing products and projects quickly and thus delete them, creating the way to add monies towards development of more likely successful and profitable products. It also served as a mechanism to identify problems in the developing products early so as to be corrected early and not inhibit the development or push back announcement or introductions of new products.
Once upon a time, the document for this company’s PLCM process was several pages. However, as time went on and bureaucracies abounded, and many products went through the PLCM process, new wrinkles and regulations and requirements were added. To understand why, one must remember that the purpose of a bureaucracy is not to succeed, just not fail. And every new requirement was added for the sole purpose of guaranteeing failures would not get into production. Every time a product would be introduced and fail or a hiccup would be seen in the PLCM process, a new set of regulations would be introduced to make certain it would not happen again.
By the time I was hired, the Phase Review process (their name for the PLCM process) was contained in two volumes, each at least 2 inches thick, and an entire set of project managers whose only purpose in life was to make certain these rules were followed exactly. And they were. At every stage of the product’s existence, the overriding question became not “Is it profitable and a successful product?” but “Have you followed the Phase Review Process?” Months and months were followed by years but the process had to be followed. In some aspects, it was successful as the only products that actually succeeded in being introduced were well thought out, crafted, nicely-configured products. The only problem was that they were usually three or four years behind the leaders and could only hope for a small niche market if any. Needless to say, this company is no longer in the industry, having abandoned it shortly after I left.
Another example, this one closer to home.: When US troops first invaded Iraq five years ago, they soon found out it was not going to be a conventional war as roadside bombs and mines started ripping up the thinly armored vehicles. Five years afterwards, the number of sufficiently armored vehicles is still in short supply. Why? Because due to previous decades’ $500 hammers and other exploits, the military procurement process had been heavily revised. Specs must be created. Everyone must have their opportunity to provide input. Suppliers must be checked out for OSHA, EEO, Diversity, EPA, and every other set of initials available. Then bidding is allowed. Afterwards, a winner is declared but then losers can appeal the process. After long (and equitable) review process, bids are finally let. Companies then can begin the production process subject to budget availability. This is an admirable process but one where the output has all been but forgotten: To win a war. In World War II, the Hellcat fighter was created from scratch within a few short months to combat the zero, contracts were let, production began, and planes built. Within two years, the fighter had swept the zeros from the sky. If this were WWII with the same military procurement process available, we would be shaking the hands of the Japanese as they approached the Potomac while still negotiating the finer points of the contract with the designated vendors.
The moral of the story: If the Process dominates in your entity, either revolutionize or bail out, the ship is beginning to list.
Paul Herbig is Managing Partner of Herbig Marketing Associates, a renown national marketing consulting firm, and the former Dean, Ketner School of Business, Tri-State University.
When everybody does their own thing
Having One’s Say
By Paul Herbig
In my last tome, I discussed what happens when the process becomes dominant and the output becomes subordinate. What happens when the process becomes so dominant and involved that everyone’s opinion becomes crucial and must be heard and is equally important to the final decision?
Herbig’s Law #33: When the few or individual are equated with the greater good, little if anything every gets accomplished, and the entity is inevitably headed for chaos and dissolution.
Once upon a time there were two banks, Citicorp and a formerly equally large rival. The standing joke was that at the end of every day Citicorp could tell its owners exactly how much money it made that day. Meanwhile across town, the other bank knew exactly how many minorities it had hired that day. Now, affirmative action and equal employment and diversity are notable goals. However when it dominates discussion to the exclusion of everything else, something is wrong. Please note that Citicorp is still one of the world’s great banking institutions while the other has disappeared from the lofty ranks.
In 1956, the National Defense Act was passed, paving (sic) the way for the National Interstate Highway System. In between fifteen and twenty years, nearly forty thousand miles of limited access highway was built, proving a boon to the American economic dynamo that would last to this day. Twenty or more years ago the idea surfaced that the nation (and the state) needed the I-69 corridor, the NAFTA highway. In particular, Indiana could use the highway to tie the southwest corner of the State to the rest of the state, a notion no one disputes and still is just as important today as it was then.
Almost immediately, cries went out, studies were initiated. Every initialed organization had to issue their report and comments. Everyone had to have his two cents worth. And if the authorities in charge did not listen, they filed a lawsuit so they would. Environmentalists complained then sued then stalled for time. Twenty years later the road is no closer to being built. Call it the refinery syndrome: Everyone knows it is necessary and would be beneficial to the greater good but because not all can agree on a consensus, talk continues. It is so important in our modern era that everyone be happy and agreement widespread that no agreement can ever be achieved. Meanwhile the problem only becomes worse.
Another version of this paradox can be seen in business communications. Once upon a time business managers were a hard charging bunch, vocal, loud, often seen using colorful language to describe their daily routines and struggles. These X-rated dialogues have long been diluted to G rated material. Due to EEO, sexual harassment fears, diversity issues, socio-cultural norms, the confusing laws, the unwanted media attention, many businesses are afraid to say, write, do anything because it might offend somebody so nothing gets done. Even mild and innocuous complaints and criticisms become searched for hidden messages that may harbor some tint of ill will. Messages become so bland in meaning as to be meaningless. Orders become requests become suggestions. The entire change of command becomes so involved in touch feely diversity training, the major objective of the business to be profitable, to thrive, to be successful, and to win becomes secondary or even worse, tertiary in importance.
Moral of the story: When it gets to this point, the ship is breaking up and there is no place to hide. You are sinking.
Paul Herbig is Managing Partner of Herbig Marketing Associates, a renown national marketing consulting firm, and the former Dean, Ketner School of Business, Tri-State University.
By Paul Herbig
In my last tome, I discussed what happens when the process becomes dominant and the output becomes subordinate. What happens when the process becomes so dominant and involved that everyone’s opinion becomes crucial and must be heard and is equally important to the final decision?
Herbig’s Law #33: When the few or individual are equated with the greater good, little if anything every gets accomplished, and the entity is inevitably headed for chaos and dissolution.
Once upon a time there were two banks, Citicorp and a formerly equally large rival. The standing joke was that at the end of every day Citicorp could tell its owners exactly how much money it made that day. Meanwhile across town, the other bank knew exactly how many minorities it had hired that day. Now, affirmative action and equal employment and diversity are notable goals. However when it dominates discussion to the exclusion of everything else, something is wrong. Please note that Citicorp is still one of the world’s great banking institutions while the other has disappeared from the lofty ranks.
In 1956, the National Defense Act was passed, paving (sic) the way for the National Interstate Highway System. In between fifteen and twenty years, nearly forty thousand miles of limited access highway was built, proving a boon to the American economic dynamo that would last to this day. Twenty or more years ago the idea surfaced that the nation (and the state) needed the I-69 corridor, the NAFTA highway. In particular, Indiana could use the highway to tie the southwest corner of the State to the rest of the state, a notion no one disputes and still is just as important today as it was then.
Almost immediately, cries went out, studies were initiated. Every initialed organization had to issue their report and comments. Everyone had to have his two cents worth. And if the authorities in charge did not listen, they filed a lawsuit so they would. Environmentalists complained then sued then stalled for time. Twenty years later the road is no closer to being built. Call it the refinery syndrome: Everyone knows it is necessary and would be beneficial to the greater good but because not all can agree on a consensus, talk continues. It is so important in our modern era that everyone be happy and agreement widespread that no agreement can ever be achieved. Meanwhile the problem only becomes worse.
Another version of this paradox can be seen in business communications. Once upon a time business managers were a hard charging bunch, vocal, loud, often seen using colorful language to describe their daily routines and struggles. These X-rated dialogues have long been diluted to G rated material. Due to EEO, sexual harassment fears, diversity issues, socio-cultural norms, the confusing laws, the unwanted media attention, many businesses are afraid to say, write, do anything because it might offend somebody so nothing gets done. Even mild and innocuous complaints and criticisms become searched for hidden messages that may harbor some tint of ill will. Messages become so bland in meaning as to be meaningless. Orders become requests become suggestions. The entire change of command becomes so involved in touch feely diversity training, the major objective of the business to be profitable, to thrive, to be successful, and to win becomes secondary or even worse, tertiary in importance.
Moral of the story: When it gets to this point, the ship is breaking up and there is no place to hide. You are sinking.
Paul Herbig is Managing Partner of Herbig Marketing Associates, a renown national marketing consulting firm, and the former Dean, Ketner School of Business, Tri-State University.
Kumbaya Obama
Do you remember summer camp, at night around the campfire, singing Kumbaya and praying for world peace? Or the great scenes of the beauty contest in "Miss Congeniality" where all the contestants said they wanted World Peace? Well that is exactly what I was reminded of by Obama's "World Tour." He made great speeches, talking about brotherhood, world peace, holding hands together, etc. Not much on specifics, as usual. The media swooned over his speech in Berlin comparing it to JFK and Reagan (comeon guys, get real).
Yes I would be the first to admit I would like world peace. So would most everyone on this globe. But everyone's definition of world peace is not the same. For fundamentalist Islamic radicals (call them what they are), world peace is one world with one religion, Islam, controlled by the laws of the Koran. For Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo, world peace is one world controlled by the threesome. So beware what you ask for, you might get it.
World Peace as we want it to be must be earned, by blood if necessary as the wars of the twenieth century showed. Words alone is insufficient. If Barack thinks his charm and charisma and eloquence will convince the warlords of Iran, Syria,Korea, and Venezuela, he is in for some bitterly earned lessons of the school of hard knocks. Prepareness and readiness to use armed weapons are the only tools that keep the Dark forces at bay.
Mccain forever over the naivete of Obama. If Europe wants him, let them have him.
Yes I would be the first to admit I would like world peace. So would most everyone on this globe. But everyone's definition of world peace is not the same. For fundamentalist Islamic radicals (call them what they are), world peace is one world with one religion, Islam, controlled by the laws of the Koran. For Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo, world peace is one world controlled by the threesome. So beware what you ask for, you might get it.
World Peace as we want it to be must be earned, by blood if necessary as the wars of the twenieth century showed. Words alone is insufficient. If Barack thinks his charm and charisma and eloquence will convince the warlords of Iran, Syria,Korea, and Venezuela, he is in for some bitterly earned lessons of the school of hard knocks. Prepareness and readiness to use armed weapons are the only tools that keep the Dark forces at bay.
Mccain forever over the naivete of Obama. If Europe wants him, let them have him.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
OBAMA politician first and foremost
While the media swoons about Obama's trips to the Mideast, if one were
to get behind the glitter and gloss and to the real events, one would find a different story with different implications. The Press telegraphed around the world shots of Barack shooting hoops with the GIs (shades of Barry in College). What they did not show and were not about to (who says they are not biased . . . ) were the treatments accorded Barack to the regular GIs. He basically ignored them, did not smile at them nor shake their hand in his effort to get to his photoshoot opportunity.
This is the kind of man we want as our commander-in-chief? He is the consumement politician and that is all. Nothing new just old as mankind itself. He only wants to get elected and could care less for the men in uniform (except that is, when it suits his purposes for the media). Not a thank you. Not a handshake. Not a nod. They are invisible to him except when it suits his purposes.
Are we going to get Hope and Change. Or much much more of the same thing if Barack were elected? I vote for the latter. The more the American people know him, the more they believe as well and will vote for "old reliable" John McCain might not make the earth move when he talks but his talks straight and from experience.
to get behind the glitter and gloss and to the real events, one would find a different story with different implications. The Press telegraphed around the world shots of Barack shooting hoops with the GIs (shades of Barry in College). What they did not show and were not about to (who says they are not biased . . . ) were the treatments accorded Barack to the regular GIs. He basically ignored them, did not smile at them nor shake their hand in his effort to get to his photoshoot opportunity.
This is the kind of man we want as our commander-in-chief? He is the consumement politician and that is all. Nothing new just old as mankind itself. He only wants to get elected and could care less for the men in uniform (except that is, when it suits his purposes for the media). Not a thank you. Not a handshake. Not a nod. They are invisible to him except when it suits his purposes.
Are we going to get Hope and Change. Or much much more of the same thing if Barack were elected? I vote for the latter. The more the American people know him, the more they believe as well and will vote for "old reliable" John McCain might not make the earth move when he talks but his talks straight and from experience.
Friday, July 25, 2008
King Barack and his heli (tank)
one of the most laughable scenes from the 1988 Presidential election is Michael Dukais in a tank with a helmet supposedly to show the world his presidential worthiness. It did exactly the opposite and was the probable cause for a most lopsided victory by Bush Senior.
Now we have another landmark occasion, King Barack, the self-appointed messiah of the Democrats and the media, in a helicopter with General Petraeus in Iraq. At least Dukakis tried to present himself as military. But in Obama's case, there were no illusions nor attempts to integrate himself into the military role (and no, playing some hoops with the troops is not a precursor to being a good commander-in-chief). After listening to a four-star general with decades of experience and a successful track record over the last 18 months indicate that although the Surge is working, it is too early to commit to any type of a withdrawal schedule and that doing so would only encourage the remnants of the opposition, King Barack with his infinite military experience (none) and vast foreign relations knowledge (none) took on his best Louis XIV attitude of "If I think it is, it must be" and "I know therefore I am." His words to the media afterwards echoed the fact that he had neither heard nor comprehended any of the general's words "Total withdrawal within 18 months by 2010 irregardless." This lack of ability to listen to experts and leaders on the ground must cast further concern about his limited and to date poor judgment.
Compare this attitude to McCain who said He would like to say withdrawal would be complete prior to the end of his presidency in 2013. However, this is dependent upon the field commanders and those most in the know. A cautionary and totally correct posture gained by decades of experience not present in his opponent.
Which one would you rather be sitting in the oval office: one who will ask and listen to the experts and leaders in the field or one who bows to political expediency and sponsors no matter the costs?
Now we have another landmark occasion, King Barack, the self-appointed messiah of the Democrats and the media, in a helicopter with General Petraeus in Iraq. At least Dukakis tried to present himself as military. But in Obama's case, there were no illusions nor attempts to integrate himself into the military role (and no, playing some hoops with the troops is not a precursor to being a good commander-in-chief). After listening to a four-star general with decades of experience and a successful track record over the last 18 months indicate that although the Surge is working, it is too early to commit to any type of a withdrawal schedule and that doing so would only encourage the remnants of the opposition, King Barack with his infinite military experience (none) and vast foreign relations knowledge (none) took on his best Louis XIV attitude of "If I think it is, it must be" and "I know therefore I am." His words to the media afterwards echoed the fact that he had neither heard nor comprehended any of the general's words "Total withdrawal within 18 months by 2010 irregardless." This lack of ability to listen to experts and leaders on the ground must cast further concern about his limited and to date poor judgment.
Compare this attitude to McCain who said He would like to say withdrawal would be complete prior to the end of his presidency in 2013. However, this is dependent upon the field commanders and those most in the know. A cautionary and totally correct posture gained by decades of experience not present in his opponent.
Which one would you rather be sitting in the oval office: one who will ask and listen to the experts and leaders in the field or one who bows to political expediency and sponsors no matter the costs?
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Obama who to obama No
It is clear that this presidential election is Obama's to win or lose. He won the primary by catering to the ultra liberal elite that controls the democratic party. But in doing so, he has alienated a multitude of groups essential to the election. Recent results are indicating that the more the general public know about the candidate, the less they like him. His flips flops, his past associations, his adamant refusal to accept the fact that Iraq is being won and has been turned around, his non-energy policy, his tax and spend issues, and above all his overt intent to use racism as a tactic against all who would criticize him or vote against him is losing him converts at an alarming rate.
1) Hillary is a lose lose proposition for him. If he accepts her as VP, he will be cast as just another politician and her presence will galvanize conservatives who hate her more than him. If he does not, millions of hillarites will not vote or worse yet will vote for McCain.
2) The more he leans towards the center, the more his liberal base becomes worrisome and more than a few might turn to the more liberal candidates (Nader). The more he moves towards the center, the more he flip flops and few can honestly say what he really means.
3) Although he might galvanize blacks to vote for him (why is it a white not voting for Obama is racist but a black who chooses to vote only for Obama is not being racist but rationale?), but for every additional black vote two or more southern Reagan democrats will switch to vote for McCain.
4)Blue collar voters, key to the Rust belt states of Michigan, pennyslvania, Ohio and perhaps Wisconsin as well, are highly patriotic and tend to support McCain because of his track record. It is likely three or more of these states will go to McCain.
5) Although the media is in awe of Obama and have already crowned him King, many are still uncertain. The Reagan factor takes hold here. In the Carter-Reagan race of 1980, it was polled as a dead heat; in actuality Reagan won by a landslide. What happened there is likely to happen this year as well. It was PC to vote for Carter. And many remarked they would to pollsters. However, when they were in the ballot box, the only people that knows how they vote are they themselves and the God Almighty. They thought to themselves and said I could not in all honesty (and despite the PC) vote for Carter and pulled the lever for Reagan. I foresee a sufficient percentage of these voters in 2008, enough to carry the Rust Belt states for McCain.
My prediction: Mccain 320 electoral votes--all of the Republican L including Virgina, NM, and Colorado, and the Upper Midwest including Ohio, Penn, Michigan and perhaps even Wisconsin
Obama 220.
The Media will be awestruck by the ignorance of the public but the public will prevail for the next four years at least.
1) Hillary is a lose lose proposition for him. If he accepts her as VP, he will be cast as just another politician and her presence will galvanize conservatives who hate her more than him. If he does not, millions of hillarites will not vote or worse yet will vote for McCain.
2) The more he leans towards the center, the more his liberal base becomes worrisome and more than a few might turn to the more liberal candidates (Nader). The more he moves towards the center, the more he flip flops and few can honestly say what he really means.
3) Although he might galvanize blacks to vote for him (why is it a white not voting for Obama is racist but a black who chooses to vote only for Obama is not being racist but rationale?), but for every additional black vote two or more southern Reagan democrats will switch to vote for McCain.
4)Blue collar voters, key to the Rust belt states of Michigan, pennyslvania, Ohio and perhaps Wisconsin as well, are highly patriotic and tend to support McCain because of his track record. It is likely three or more of these states will go to McCain.
5) Although the media is in awe of Obama and have already crowned him King, many are still uncertain. The Reagan factor takes hold here. In the Carter-Reagan race of 1980, it was polled as a dead heat; in actuality Reagan won by a landslide. What happened there is likely to happen this year as well. It was PC to vote for Carter. And many remarked they would to pollsters. However, when they were in the ballot box, the only people that knows how they vote are they themselves and the God Almighty. They thought to themselves and said I could not in all honesty (and despite the PC) vote for Carter and pulled the lever for Reagan. I foresee a sufficient percentage of these voters in 2008, enough to carry the Rust Belt states for McCain.
My prediction: Mccain 320 electoral votes--all of the Republican L including Virgina, NM, and Colorado, and the Upper Midwest including Ohio, Penn, Michigan and perhaps even Wisconsin
Obama 220.
The Media will be awestruck by the ignorance of the public but the public will prevail for the next four years at least.
Obama-mania
Today in Europe, Europeans are cheering on Obama as if he were the second coming. Now if only they could vote in the US election . . . probably a good thing they can't. Yet what are they cheering about. Obama is not Bush. Obama is more Multilateral, Multicultural, International than other American candidates. But is that really better? Do most Americans want to become like most Europeans . . socialist, government dominated economies, stagnant, secular, socially and morally decaying, and bit by bit being assimilated into Islam due to appeasement policies? I would answer no.
Who is this obama? He is pretty. He speaks eloquently. He is charismatic. He talks about change and hope but try to get past those two words. It appears that he HOPES the american public does not notice he wants to CHANGE them to his most liberal notions. WHat experience does he have? No private sector. No military. Nothing beyond law and public sector. What does he know about foreign policy? Nothing. His views of foreign policy is talk, obviously he believes he can charm foreign dictators the way he has seemingly charmed American liberals and media (is he in for a surprise). Some proclaim him the next JFK. Obviously, they have not read the history books. JFK's foreign naiveness and lack of preparedness caused the Bay of Pigs, allowed Krushchev to build the Berlin Wall without "preconditions" or American intervention, put us in Vietnam, and nearly escalated to a nuclear war with the Cuban Missile Crisis. And we want another JFK wannabe in the white house? Lord forbid what we may end up.
They want Obama because he is no Bush. Carter was elected because he was not Nixon in a post watergate backlash. Look what happened to Carter: Afghanistan was invaded by the Russians, Nicaragua and El Salvador, Stagflation, the Shah left Iran and created today's Iranian situation, Energy controls and almost rationing of gasoline through long gas lines. And this is what we want? Another Carter just to get rid of Bush? THere is an old saying: Beware of what you want, you might just get it.
Obama, the next JFK with Carterian overtones. Pity America in a few years.
Who is this obama? He is pretty. He speaks eloquently. He is charismatic. He talks about change and hope but try to get past those two words. It appears that he HOPES the american public does not notice he wants to CHANGE them to his most liberal notions. WHat experience does he have? No private sector. No military. Nothing beyond law and public sector. What does he know about foreign policy? Nothing. His views of foreign policy is talk, obviously he believes he can charm foreign dictators the way he has seemingly charmed American liberals and media (is he in for a surprise). Some proclaim him the next JFK. Obviously, they have not read the history books. JFK's foreign naiveness and lack of preparedness caused the Bay of Pigs, allowed Krushchev to build the Berlin Wall without "preconditions" or American intervention, put us in Vietnam, and nearly escalated to a nuclear war with the Cuban Missile Crisis. And we want another JFK wannabe in the white house? Lord forbid what we may end up.
They want Obama because he is no Bush. Carter was elected because he was not Nixon in a post watergate backlash. Look what happened to Carter: Afghanistan was invaded by the Russians, Nicaragua and El Salvador, Stagflation, the Shah left Iran and created today's Iranian situation, Energy controls and almost rationing of gasoline through long gas lines. And this is what we want? Another Carter just to get rid of Bush? THere is an old saying: Beware of what you want, you might just get it.
Obama, the next JFK with Carterian overtones. Pity America in a few years.
Energy or environment
It appears the democrats have never heard about the fine art of trade off and compromise. In the current situation of $5 gas, the need to do everything the country can do to move towards energy independence is critical. However, their response and one that has been their response for decades has been: nothing that will endanger the environment. Not one caribou can be disturbed while Middle America lies in ruins because of oil induced recession. Even the mere thought of a drop of oil on any pristine beach is enough to keep the thermostats in the North at 50 degrees this winter. Forget drilling for oil anywhere, using the oil shale available, or the immense coal resources. The democratic password is alternative fuels (in twenty, thirty, or forty years). No Nuclear. No coal. No oil. What are citizens suppose to do to keep warm this winter or to fuel their tank to get to work? Cut down trees?
The usual Democratic response is to carpool. Most :"fly-over" Americans live miles from where they work and nowhere near their coworkers. Ride a bike or walk: 20 miles?
Move to where they would be close to their work: Sell a house that has been severely devalued over the previous two years while in a recessionary area and buy one near a plant where you might or might not be employed for the next few years. Not an economically attractive idea. Sell your guzzler and buy a hybrid. You probably owe more on the car then it is worth and where are you going to get 30 thou right now? no, none of the democratic stock answers will work in fly over America.
The correct response is to do everything (oil drilling, coal plants, nuclear, oil shade and alternative energy) at the same time and allow the free markets to determine how it all shakes out. Government has never been a good selector of winners and losers and does more damage than it betters.
Democrats--staying the course on this oil (or rather no oil) philosophy will cost you the election this year. Of course, if that is what you want . . . adhere to your liberal orthodoxy regardless of outcome, fine.
The usual Democratic response is to carpool. Most :"fly-over" Americans live miles from where they work and nowhere near their coworkers. Ride a bike or walk: 20 miles?
Move to where they would be close to their work: Sell a house that has been severely devalued over the previous two years while in a recessionary area and buy one near a plant where you might or might not be employed for the next few years. Not an economically attractive idea. Sell your guzzler and buy a hybrid. You probably owe more on the car then it is worth and where are you going to get 30 thou right now? no, none of the democratic stock answers will work in fly over America.
The correct response is to do everything (oil drilling, coal plants, nuclear, oil shade and alternative energy) at the same time and allow the free markets to determine how it all shakes out. Government has never been a good selector of winners and losers and does more damage than it betters.
Democrats--staying the course on this oil (or rather no oil) philosophy will cost you the election this year. Of course, if that is what you want . . . adhere to your liberal orthodoxy regardless of outcome, fine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
