Dear Mitt, No Mas!

Dear Mitt Romney,

I’m done.  I will not support you if you seek the presidency in 2016, even though I did so quite enthusiastically in the past.  Look, I have nothing but respect for you.  I’ve even made phone calls on your behalf, donated to your campaigns, and argued your merits to anyone who’d listen.  And I still think you’d make an exceptional president!  But, the fact is, at least for this supporter, you have disqualified yourself as a candidate.  Here’s why:   

Mr. Romney, you’re a businessman right?  Let me pose some hypothetical questions to you:  Would you hire a CEO who had legitimate access to the trade secrets of his competitors yet refused to learn from them?  If you owned a football team, would you hire a head coach who had legitimate access to his opponent’s playbook but failed to study it?

Those trade secrets and playbook are readily available in the writings of Saul Alinsky.  Have you read them?  Have you studied them?  Have you devised counter tactics?  I seriously doubt it because you’ve been blind-sided time and again by Alinsky tactics.  Ever since Bill Clinton, Democrats have won every election in which they stuck closest to the Saul Alinsky playbook.  If you had absorbed those lessons and understood how to counter them you might have won.  Instead, you naively ran straight into an Alinsky buzzsaw.  To this day, I’m not sure you understand how you were Alinsky-ed.

Just about every turning point in the last campaign hinged on Alinsky tactics.  The “war on women”, binders full of women, dogs on car roofs, the 47% kerfuffle, ads about the woman who died of cancer, the haircut story, the car lift, the horse, and on and on were all straight out of the Alinsky playbook.  Even the Candy Crowley debate fiasco was manageable had you understood Alinsky.

Then there were the unforced errors, which again could have been avoided with a basic understanding of Alinsky.  “Obama’s a nice guy, but he’s in over his head.”  “Obama didn’t cause the financial crisis, he inherited it.”  “Obama deserves credit for getting bin Laden.”  All examples of huge unforced errors.  If you’d like a detailed accounting of why these were the wrong things to say, (aside from them being flat wrong!) please read my post mortem from December 2012, “Why Romney Lost”.

Here’s another hypothetical:  If you were hiring a marketing executive, would you hire someone who had unfettered access to free advertising but failed to use it? 

Ever since Ronald Reagan, Republicans have won every election in which they understood that the news media, entertainment media, and academia would be aligned against them, and that they therefore must go straight to the voters - especially to their base!  You sir had unfettered access to conservative talk radio, a medium that reaches millions of Republican base voters each day, and you gave them the Heisman! 

I witnessed you passing up these gimmees throughout your time on the national political stage, and it made me want to tear my hair out.  I simply can’t take it anymore.  (Plus, I’m running out of hair.)

Mr. Romney, you’re an amazingly accomplished person.  You are no dummy.  But you’re a “saint”, a Mormon Bishop, and you are ill equipped for the devils domain of today’s Alinsky politics.  Hillary or no Hillary, 2016 will be all Alinsky all the time.  Sorry Mitt, this ain't your game.  No mas.    

Regards, Ron Reich

undiepundit.com

P.S. Dear reader, please forward this to any Republicans you know in the hope that someone in Romney’s circle might perhaps see it and save us, and him, the humiliation of another embarrassment!  

This Presidency has been Photoshopped

(Update:  Awoke this morning to the news that unemployment miraculously fell to 7.8%!     I rest my case.)
Every aspect of this Presidency has been Photoshopped.  It’s been air-brushed, edited, manipulated, faked, phonied, cropped, distorted, misrepresented, massaged, tweaked, falsified, misreported, and staged.  What you see is not real.  Almost nothing you have been told about Barack Obama is true.  Ditto for Mitt Romney.  Even when you think you are seeing them speak in their own words, you are being duped.  That’s why Mitt Romney’s debate victory last night was such an unexpected surprise to so many.     

The deceptions started from the moment Barack Obama walked onto the national stage.  Air-brushed was his work as a “Community Organizer”: a job title originated by revolutionary Saul Alinsky, who advocated for the destruction of our society in pursuit of an undefined utopia.  Unreported were Obama’s associations with terrorist Bill Ayers, Communist Frank Marshall Davis, anti-Zionist Rashid Khalidi,  racist Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and many others with similarly controversial ideologies.  Edited was his race baiting and divisive rhetoric aimed at previous administrations, white Americans, and the rich.  Cropped was his avowed affinity for “Marxist professors”, disdain for “typical white” people, and conflicting stories on everything from his religion, to his Mother’s death.  Unasked were any tough questions by the media or any follow-ups to his deceptive answers.

Once the campaign of 2008 got underway the Photoshopping went bipartisan.  John McCain was falsely accused of an extramarital affair in a huge front-page feature in the New York Times.  Misrepresented were his mostly moderate views.  Cropped was Senator Obama’s record as the most liberal member of the Senate.  Unmentioned was his nickname as the “Senator from Fannie and Freddie”.  Scrubbed was his distinction as the man who received campaign contributions from the “toxic twins” at a higher rate than any other public official.   Covered-up was his long-time advocacy for the very policies which were the immediate cause of the financial crisis:  subsidized mortgages for irresponsible borrowers.  Staged was Obama’s preferred meme for the cause of the crisis: greedy bankers, Bush, and The Republicans. 

The Photoshopping then continued throughout Obama’s Presidency.  Unreported was the fact that the recession officially ended in June 2009, before Obama policies largely took effect.  Falsified was the fact that Obama’s nearly Trillion Dollar stimulus, printed out of thin air, added not a thimbles worth of net value to the American economy.   Lied about was the notion that Obama’s unprecedented government-run GM bankruptcy was somehow better than a normal lawful court-run bankruptcy.   Air-brushed has been Obama’s featherweight work schedule, a calendar filled with none of the markers of diligence…except to politicking, golfing, and recreation.  Buried was the unprecedented partisan nature of the entire ObamaCare process.  Photoshopped was Obama’s opposition to all of the Bush policies which led to the killing of Osama bin Laden (Live captures, Gitmo, interrogation, and wiretapping).   Unreported is the fact that under Obama, US casualties have doubled in Afghanistan, the soldiers we are training are murdering us, and we are now in full retreat throughout the middle-east.  Even Government statistics like Unemployment, Inflation, and GDP Growth have been manipulated to always paint a rosy picture no matter how awful.  (Just the other day it was breathlessly reported that housing prices rose handsomely, while the volume of homes remained low.  This was celebrated as an indication of improved economic conditions, instead of being reported as dollar weakness and inflation, which it most likely was, given the unchanged volume!) 

Finally, lied about is the Presidents propensity to be on both sides of every single issue.   It is impossible to find an issue on which Barack Obama has not taken opposing positions.  These are not flip flops.  This is a deliberate smoke screen of cognitive dissonance designed to hide the revolution and maintain power.     

The Presidential Campaign continues to be Photoshopped.  Edited were Mitt Romney’s 47% comments (The hidden tape of his remarks runs for over an hour, yet the 47% comment is abruptly cut-off just as he is likely to elaborate!).  Faked is an MSNBC clip that falsely paints Romney as churlish and petty.   An edited Mitt Romney gets almost universally negative coverage from both the US and foreign press.  Photoshopped images of Mitt Romney unable to spell his own name are taken as real and become punchlines.  Made-up comments make repeated rounds on Facebook and elsewhere, until the lies become mainstream.   Falsified is the image of Mitt Romney as a murdering, misogynistic, tax cheating, greed-head, who is mean to puppies.  Meanwhile, an air brushed Barack Obama gets universally positive coverage.  Unreported go the reprehensible cover-ups of Fast and Furious and the Libya debacle, skipped security briefs, failed Afghanistan policy, Iraq failures,  jailed filmmakers, support for the violent Occupy movement, dismal economy, compulsive mendacity, and on and on.    

This could go on for pages, but the point is not to provide a history lesson.  The point is to say this:  if you were totally blindsided by Mitt Romney’s debate performance and equally surprised by Barack Obama’s, you need to think long and hard about your media sources.  You are being played like a Stradivarius. 

Can't this guy even spell his own name?  Photoshopped!

Media Summary of the 2012 campaign:

Basement Liberals

One of the most enduring images from the GOP convention in Tampa was when Paul Ryan said: “College graduates should not have to live out their 20s in their childhood bedrooms, staring up at fading Obama posters and wondering when they can move out and get going with life.”

Then there was Mitt Romney’s hidden camera riff about the 47% who will vote for Obama no matter what because they want everything for free, pay no income tax, and see themselves as victims.   

These two images get to the essence of what really separates Liberals from Conservatives, not just in the US, but also around the globe.  It also gives me an opportunity to make a philosophical point, which ought to be a central theme in conservatism today and ought to be front and center in Mitt Romney’s campaign:  The Federal Government must never be the safety net! 

Liberals and Government:

Liberals view government as their parent.  Accordingly, they want a really cool parent.  One that lets them live in the basement indefinitely, buys and cooks the food, does the laundry, pays the bills, gives them a free cell phone, and takes care of them when they are sick.  A cool parent asks no questions and makes no demands.   A cool parent wouldn’t care if you smoked weed in the basement, slept until noon, played video games all night, had frequent wild parties, and blasted loud music.  Really cool parents wouldn’t mind your alternative lifestyle because it would just enhance their own coolness!  They might even remodel the basement for you, put on an addition, and add a private entrance to make you totally comfortable living there.  Really cool parents are awesome, no?  In fact they are so awesome, why would you ever leave the basement?

And there’s the rub; you wouldn’t.  You would happily live the decadent life of a dependent mooch in your parent’s basement where you would obtain none of the habits or skills to ever be independent or make a positive contribution to society.  Then one day your parents or the money would disappear, and you would be one angry helpless slacker living in a dark basement that the bank wants to repossess. 

This is why socialism eventually fails wherever and whenever it is tried.  Sure, it might take a few generations to breed all the success traits out of the population, but eventually that will happen and the society will crumble.  

  

Conservatives and Government:

Conservatives don’t view government as their parents, don’t want to be dependents living in anyone’s basement, don’t care if their government is cool, and are not afraid of being independent. That does not mean Conservatives reject all government.  On the contrary, Conservatives understand that for them to be free they need strong federal and state governments.  But conservatives want a federal government that only does the things no other entity can, like defense, lawmaking, judiciary, money, foreign relations, and taxing.  All the other things, like taking care of dependents, healthcare, education, retirement, and free cell phones, should be done by the states, individuals, families, non-government organizations, religious groups, and private companies.   These are the fibers which weave together to form a resilient society.  The States and the society must provide the safety net, not the federal government, and for good reason. 

The federal government is unique in that it alone can print money!  This sets up a classic conflict of interest.  This is why the federal government must never be the safety net.  Keeping these entitlements and safety net items out of the federal sphere is the only way to insure that the voters don’t ever have the power to vote themselves free money and “rights” which belong to other generations.  Thus, the states and non-government society are in a better position to honestly provide a sustainable safety net.  I wish this philosophy was front and center in Mitt Romney’s campaign.

Incidentally, this is the way the country was laid out in The Constitution.  Those founding parents may not have been “cool” but they sure were smart. 

Here’s what it looks like when the process is complete:  

The 2012 race in a nutshell:

  

“The Issue”

Mitt Romney’s selection of Paul Ryan has changed the focus of the election and put “The Issue” front and center.

You may think The Issue is the economy.  Mitt Romney has been campaigning all along as though it is, but it is not.  The interesting conundrum of the economic argument is that wherever the economy is weakest, Obama is strongest.  The States with the weakest economies are all solid Obama wins according to the polls.  The groups with the worst economic performance are all solid Democrat supporters.  The cities with dying industries, dying downtowns, dismal economies and crumbling finances are largely Democrat run and Democrat leaning.  When Obama says “Our plan worked!” he may be referring to this apparent conundrum; the weakened economy has actually strengthened his support among his base.

  

You may think The Issue is jobs.  Republicans talk an awful lot about jobs, but here again, high unemployment does not appear to help them.  As with the economy, states and groups with the highest unemployment are all solid Obama territory.  More evidence his plan is working. 

To make a long story short, The Issue is not the deficit, nor healthcare, nor national security, nor is it energy, even though all those will play a role in the upcoming debate.  The reason Obama is strong in all those areas with high unemployment and dismal economic performance is because he has greatly increased federal hand-outs.  Jobs and economic growth are superfluous when the government gives you everything.   Not only did we have an existing mess in entitlements, Obama has made it much worse.  The Issue is entitlements.

We could shut down the entire federal government and still not be able to afford our entitlements.  Shut the military, the courts, all the government agencies, the FBI, CIA, NASA, EPA, DOT, the Senate, the House, and everything else except the existing entitlements and interest, and we’d still be insolvent in a matter of years.  In other words, we are living off our kid’s money.  Romney/Ryan believe that our thirst for entitlements constitutes an immoral claim on the labor of others.  They have a strong case.    

Now for the boring numbers part (skip to "Conclusion" if you are ADD/ADHD): 

·      Tax revenue has averaged almost exactly 18% of GDP for 60 years.  During that time, rates have been all over the place for every type of federal tax, but never has federal revenue sustained a long period above or below that 18% level.  Tax revenue is self regulating and fixed over time at 18% of GDP.  Taxing "The Rich" cannot solve this.  (top graph)        

·      Meanwhile, entitlements alone plus interest on the debt will bankrupt us. (bottom chart)

 

*Source: Heritage Foundation

Conclusion:

Every time a politician has tried to even start a conversation about entitlements they have been quickly shouted down, sometimes by their own party.  The reason this is so is that we’ve had a kind of immunity from having to deal with entitlements and deficits.  We alone can print the world’s reserve currency.  We alone can issue US Treasuries.  And we alone can lead the world on interest rates.   This unique position has allowed us to live beyond our means without repercussions.  Our trading partners and financiers keep writing us the equivalent of second, third, and fourth mortgages on our debt while allowing us to refinance at historically low rates.   If only this could go on forever. 

But it can’t, and it is irresponsible and immoral to pretend otherwise as Obama has.  This is where Romney/Ryan come in.

Romney/Ryan are the first modern ticket focusing on The Issue during a campaign.  They are both articulate, informed, accomplished, and serious.  We’ll see if the public is ready to hear their message.  I sincerely hope it goes better than last time around.  You see, once upon a time we had another Presidential ticket which spoke frankly about entitlements.  They too were concerned with an entitlement that amounted to an immoral claim on the labor of others.  Their names were Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin.  

This Is Your Bain

Mitt Romney Is Batman

There's a new Batman movie coming out and I hear Rush Limbaugh has compared Mitt Romney to Bruce Wayne/Batman.  Ergo, it is time to revisit one of my favorite mash-ups.  (Apologies to Herman Cain fans, but he had already dropped out when I made this.)

Shit Romney Won’t Say – Part I

Politicians rarely speak their mind, or at least their whole mind.  Their job, which is to be liked by as many people as possible, is antithetical to speaking in absolutes.  Here is a quote from the man many regard as our greatest President, Abraham Lincoln:

 

"I think slavery is wrong, morally, and politically. I desire that it should be no further spread in these United States, and I should not object if it should gradually terminate in the whole Union." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Speech at Cincinnati, Ohio" (September 17, 1859), p. 440.

“I should not object if it should gradually terminate…”  Huh?  Why not: “If elected, I will emancipate all slaves.”?  Note that the above quote was about a year before the election of 1860.  If you compare Lincoln’s rhetoric on either side of the campaign with his statements right before the election, there is a marked difference in tone.  Abe Lincoln, our greatest President, adopted a more moderate tone during his campaign.   Apparently, Lincoln had an Etch-A-Sketch.

With that in mind, here are some things Mitt Romney won’t say during this campaign.  All I know is, I find these things to be axiomatic, and I can say them even if Mitt won’t:    

·   Barack Obama did not inherit this mess.  In fact, he is largely responsible for the Financial Crisis of 2008!  No, he didn’t do it singlehandedly;  he had lots of help.  But, I defy you to find a single human being who was present at more stages of this economic cluster-fuck than Barack Obama.  From his college days, to his Community Organizer days, to his ACORN days, to his Non-Profit days, to his State Senate days, to his U.S. Senate days, all the way to his Presidency, he has been an effective proponent of the very policies and philosophies which crashed the financial system in 2008 and have kept us from escaping the malaise.  To wit:  Marxist student?  Check.  ACORN activist against bank lending standards?  Check.  Community Reinvestment Act?  Check.  Supported Subprime Mortgages for anyone?  Check.  Fannie and Freddie’s biggest money recipient by rate?  Check.  TARP?  Check.  Continued support for the re-distribution of credit?  Check.  Continued war on bank lending standards?  Check.  Continued support for Fannie and Freddie? Check.  Supported Fed Chairman Bernanke all along?  Check.  I could go on for pages.      

·   Barack Obama had nothing to do with getting Osama bin Laden.  In fact, the bin Laden raid happened IN SPITE OF Barack Obama!   As a candidate for Senate, a U.S. Senator, and then President,  Barack Obama opposed every single policy which led to the eventual location and termination of Osama bin Laden.  To wit:  Opposed interrogating terrorists?  Check.  Opposed imprisoning terrorists?  Check.  Opposed treating terrorists as military combatants?  Check.  Opposed wiretapping terrorists?  Check.  Opposed Guantanamo?  Check.  Opposed gathering any intelligence from terrorists?  Check.  Opposed waterboarding KSM?  Check.  My Labradoodle, who opposed none of those policies, did more to get Osama bin Laden than Barack Obama.   

·   Barack Obama is not a “nice guy”.  In fact, Barack Obama is an amoral person!  Morality is the difference between Economic Liberals and Economic Conservatives.   To wit:  Marx = Redistribution of Wealth is good for The Lower Classes.  Keynes = Redistribution of Wealth is good for Stimulating the Economy.  Progressives of both Parties = Redistribution of Wealth is good Politics.   All the above definitions focus on the benefit to the receiving class and none address the moral implications.  Redistribution of Wealth is immoral by definition because it amounts to THEFT.   Barack Obama, who may embody one or all the above ideologies, is an exemplary example of this amorality.   He cannot impose an immoral economic system and be “nice” at the same time. 

My real complaint is, not only will Mitt Romney not say this shit, he says the exact opposite.  In all three cases, Mitt Romney could avoid these topics, but instead he is on record saying:  “Obama did not cause the financial mess.”, “Obama deserves praise for getting bin Laden.”, and “Obama is a nice guy.”  It would be like Linclon saying: “Personally, I think slave owners are nice people.  Really, they inherited a bad system, and they deserve praise for failing to completely stop the abolitionist movement.”

Preposterous.   Still to come - Part II.       

It's Likability Stupid!

"If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."  This nugget of psychology, often attributed to Abraham Maslow, is particularly relevant to today's politics.

Two cases in particular:  

On one side is all the conservative hand-wringing over Mitt Romney's apparent victory in the GOP primary.  Conservative analysts are almost unanimous in their disdain for Mitt Romney claiming he is not a "real conservative" and will certainly lose a general election like other "moderates" John McCain, George H. W. Bush, and Bob Dole. 

In the telling of these analysts, Ronald Reagan's victories were all about ideology and contrast.  According to them, the American people got all analytical, just like them, and carefully weighed the policies of the candidates.  In the end, after all the analysis, they were won over by the sensible, logical conservative policies of Ronald Reagan.  Bunk.  

Reagan got elected because the American people liked him.  If ideology and contrast were the winning formula, Barry Goldwater would have been President too!  

On the other side, Barack Obama is making a similar error.  He got elected in 2008 because the American people liked him, not because they liked divisive rhetoric and class warfare.  Yet, with a dismal record on the economy, a long line of broken promises, low polls on ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, and foreign policy, his campaign is entirely based on three negative emotions: hate, envy and guilt. 

According to Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals", which is Obama's tactical bible: 

If the organizer begins with an affirmation of love for people, he promptly turns everyone off. If, on the other hand, he begins with a denunciation of exploiting employers, slum landlords, police shakedowns, gouging merchants, he is inside their experience and they accept him. 

Electoral politics is different from Community Organizing, and Obama may be squandering the one thing he had going for him, likability.  

The 2012 race will ultimately come down to a contest between two men who will fight it out, not on some ideological battlefield contesting the brains of voters, but rather the way it's always been done: over hearts.  

It's likability stupid!   

      

  

Romney The Weak?

I keep hearing about how weak Mitt Romney is as a Republican front-runner.  Despite steady victories, strong second-place showings, winning the popular vote, winning the delegate count, and having the deepest organization, the perception is he is weak and has not inspired the Republican base.  This is a valid observation when it comes to a primary, but is utterly meaningless when it comes to a general election against incumbent Barack Obama.

There are three kinds of voters in a general election:

• one third will vote Democrat no matter who's on the ticket
• one third will vote Republican no matter who's on the ticket
• and one third will vote for the person they like the most

In a highly polarized general election, the third group is the only one that matters.

However, in a primary, the third group does not vote.  Thus, primaries tell us nothing about the relative general election strengths of a nominee.  

Regardless of who gets the Republican nod, the first two groups will be highly motivated and will show-up to vote in November.   How will the the third group treat Romney and will they like him?

All you need to do is watch the left, and they are really scared of Mitt Romney.  Here's why:

• Last time around, Barack Obama won the votes of white women. 
• White women never warmed-up to John McCain.  (or Sarah Palin)
• This time around, Obama needs those white women again.  
• Apparently, white women like Mitt Romney. 

Democrats are currently engaged in building a myth around a "Republican War on Women".  The first group has bought into it hook, line, and sinker.  The second group isn't buying it at all.  And the third group will not buy the notion of Mitt Romney as a misogynist.

We always hear about "swing states" but really this will come down to "swing voters", and in 2012, they will be white women.

Mitt Romney cannot be painted as a misogynist, and white women are already warm to him.  Mitt Romney will be the Republican's strongest candidate with these swing voters.    

The G.E. Rule – Part 2

In an earlier post I proposed The G.E. Rule, which is that no company should pay more tax than General Electric, the nations largest corporation and President Obama’s favorite company.   Since G.E. pays ZERO taxes, this would end income tax at the business level and solve a plethora of major problems today:

• Unemployment would plummet
• Growth would flourish
• Capital would flood into the US
• Your pay would go up
• Your company would be able to compete with the Big Boys who currently buy influence
• Your health insurance choices would be yours and not your boss’s (it would end the corporate deduction for employer insurance) 
• You could leave your job and not worry about your health insurance 
• Dividends and capital gains could be taxed at the same rates as income (Obama’s  Buffett Rule would be satisfied)
• Overseas profits could be repatriated instantly
• It would end taxation without representation 
• It would satisfy the Tea Party and end Stealth Taxes (all taxes would be transparent to voters once and for all)
• Most corporate lobbyists would be out of a job
• Crony capitalism would be seriously wounded
• Washington’s manipulative power would be greatly reduced
• Prices on all goods and services would plummet 
• Stocks would be rationally valued as the double taxation would end (this would end stock bubbles like the Tech Bubble of the 90s) 
• Companies, even Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway, would pay dividends

And this is just a partial list of instant benefits from The G.E. Rule.  (Update:  For much more on this, check out my older post - GE is Right!) 

Of course, this would be politically impossible because almost no politician in Washington wants to cede power to business, markets, or voters.  Lobbyists would freak out.  In fact no politician, even Ron Paul, is proposing anything like this.  If I was a Republican frontrunner, I’d take a good hard look at The G.E. Rule.       

If I was Mitt Romney... Part 2

If I was Mitt Romney - I'd fire back at Romneycare critics and say, "Look,  everyone keeps citing similarities between Romneycare and Obamacare but this misses the point; it's the differences that matter.  Chimpanzees and humans share 90% of their DNA, yet no one would confuse a human with a chimp.  Romneycare and Obamacare do share some DNA but they are very different animals.  Romneycare was a plan to prevent freeloading, and that was its only purpose.  Obamacare is a direct line to socialized medicine, and was specifically designed for that purpose."  Game. Over.        

If I was Mitt Romney...

If I was Mitt Romney - I'd fire back at Romneycare critics and say, "Look,  Massachusetts is a little different.  Context is everything.  You try Governing a state made-up of Barney Franks!"  Game. Over.      

The Tebow Test

Reflections on the GOP primaries and Tim Tebow:  

During post-game analysis in the midst of Denver's winning streak, I heard Jimmy Johnson, ex-coach, superbowl winner, and football analyst, opine that he’d never seen a quarterback get more out of his teammates and inspire them to play-up than Tim Tebow.  It reminded me of Harry Potter, the average wizard who manages to pull off amazing feats against all odds with the help of his loyal group of friends, without whom he would not be nearly as magical.  Sunday he did it again against the heavily favored Steelers.

And this brings me to the GOP primaries.  Being a chief executive is never a solitary endeavor despite what we’ve heard.    Good executives are team leaders.  Sure, “the buck stops here” and “it’s lonely at the top”, but look at any effective leader and you will find a team inspired by his/her example.  

The questions for voters are these:  Who will build a team and inspire them to play-up when the game is on the line?  Who has done that in the past?  Who has maintained good relations with former teammates?  Who can lead by example?    Are ideology and oratory enough?  What value should be placed on effective leadership experience?  Who is capable of turning adversaries into allies?  

In other words, who in the GOP field can pass "The Tebow Test"?

(This is an UPDATE of an earlier post by the same name.) 

The Batman Primaries

Check out this cartoon for more commentary on the 2012 race:  Useful Idiots

The Tebow Test

Yesterday, Tim Tebow led the Denver Broncos to their 7^th improbable win in 8 games as their starting quarterback.  During the post-game analysis I heard Jimmy Johnson, ex-coach, superbowl winner, and longtime football analyst opine that he’d never seen a quarterback get more out of his teammates and inspire them to play-up than Tim Tebow.  I was reminded of Harry Potter, the average wizard who manages to pull off amazing feats against all odds by having a loyal group of friends without whom he would not be nearly as magical.

I bring this up not to talk about football but rather as an allegory for choosing a President.  Being a chief executive is never a solitary endeavor despite what we’ve heard.    Good executives are team leaders. Sure, “the buck stops here” and “it’s lonely at the top”, but look at any effective leader and you will find a team inspired by his/her example.  The questions for voters are these: Are ideology and oratory everything?  What about effective leadership?  Who is likely to inspire by example?  Who is capable of turning adversaries into allies?   

Remember, all administrations are buffeted by events.  You don’t always get to plan on what challenges you face.  Given that, who will build a team and inspire them to play-up when the game is on the line?  Who has done that in the past?  Who has maintained good relations with their former teammates?  All questions worth asking before pulling a lever.     

Mitt Romney - Birth of a Salesman

I watched the GOP debate in New Hampshire last night and thought something new happened:  Mitt Romney showed how talented he is as a salesman. Now, when I say “salesman” I don’t mean it in the pop-culture sense like “huckster” or “con-man”. No, I mean it as a huge mega-compliment.

I have the utmost regard for quality salespeople; the people of integrity who bring new products, services, and ideas to a reflexively skeptical audience. (Think Steve Jobs.) And boy are we skeptical when it comes to politicians!

The skills necessary to excel in sales are often misunderstood outside business circles. A good salesman does not trick you into buying something you don’t want. A good salesman does not convince you to act against your interests. No, a good salesman has the skills to understand what is important to you and then explain his product intelligently in those terms. Moreover, a good salesman must have a solid product, be knowledgeable, trustworthy, and likeable.

Selling is just a piece of making a good President, but selling is really important. What if a President had a truly decent product (agenda) but lacked the skills to implement it? Would that person make a good President? What if a President had a really bad product and managed to cynically convince us to buy it against our interests? Would that person make a good President?

Last night Mitt Romney passed the sales test for me in a way he hadn't before, but that doesn’t make him perfect. (No one’s perfect, except of course my wife!)

My problems with Mitt Romney are a bit different than the usual. You see, I’m actually OK with Romneycare. In fact, I’m OK with the individual mandate at the state level. The reason for this, as Mitt has explained, is that we’ve always had a mandate in health care, except it was one-sided. That mandate was always on the providers and it forced them to treat anyone who walked into an emergency room. That forced a reciprocal mandate on responsible, insured folks to cover the costs of those who refuse to pay. (Remember, those who are indigent are covered by Medicaid!)

The debate over Obamacare has been hijacked by the mandate controversy because the issue of constitutionality is seen by opponents as a way to kill it in the courts. That may or may not work, but I think it’s been a distraction. The real evil of Obamacare is that it nationalizes the remaining 50% of the health care market and that will kill innovation, access, quality, and life. I think Mitt Romney gets this and the Massachusetts plan was not a similar takeover.

I’m also OK with being pro-choice and pro-life, even though my views may differ from Romney’s at any given time. I’m OK with choice early in a pregnancy, but I define late-term abortion as taking a life. ‘Nuff said.

No, my problem with Mitt Romney is that he does not seem to understand Obama’s role in the financial meltdown. I’ve heard him say things like: “Obama did not cause this mess. He’s a nice enough guy. But he made it worse!” I find this a fundamental misreading of the biggest issue of the day. As much as any one man, Barack Obama did cause the meltdown in 2008 and has lied about it and blamed others ever since. He was known as the “Senator from Fannie Mae” for Pete’s sake! He worked with ACORN to force banks to make bad loans in the ‘90s. He voted for TARP. His fingerprints are all over this from the get-go. And yes, he did make it worse.

I realize the polls don’t agree with this assessment and Acade-Media-Wood have done a great job of covering Obama’s tracks, but I expect the Republican nominee to at least understand this. And once they understand it, I’d hope they can sell it in a general election.  Based on last night, Mitt Romney is half way there.

(I realize there were others at that debate and I thought Michelle Bachman was the other winner, but this post is limited in scope.)