For anyone interested in politics, Game Change is a must read. Not because it mesmerizes with brilliance, but because it provides the detail needed to either validate or invalidate perceptions of each candidate during the 2008 Presidential election.
I was curious to know if I would have supported a different candidate if I knew all the gory details about each of them. During the campaign I had a mental scorecard for each; a completely subjective measure of their strengths and weaknesses, and an overall ranking. So with that in mind, and with Game Change in hand, I set out to test my intuition.
John Edwards lost every point I had graciously awarded him. Even with the stupidity of the affair, I assumed he was in general, a good man with a big ego gone astray. Though I didn't believe he was Presidential material, I didn't think he was an idiot who was completely out of touch with reality. Now I do.
Elizabeth Edwards lost pretty much all of her points as well. She wasn't a candidate, but she was very much in the public eye and had earned accolades and empathy from the press. She and John deserved each other.
Barack Obama is about where I had him. A generally upstanding guy; is willing to play dirty but within limits; sometimes presses the boundary of those limits; very strong ego though he attempts to conceal it; a very good manager and problem solver.
Hillary is the only one who gained points. The book humanized her. She is more thoughtful and genuine than I had believed; her perspective of the competing candidates is probably shared by a lot of people; while she clearly wanted to break the glass ceiling for women, she very much believed she was the most qualified person for the job. On the minus side, she poorly managed her campaign and her husband--that's not a confidence builder considering the position she was seeking. She clearly has faults, but overall she came out ahead.
John McCain lost points. Whether or not it was intended by the authors, my takeaway is that he was unequivocally unqualified for the job. His decision to add Palin to his ticket was flat out reckless. He was willing to throw a hail Mary, and add her to his ticket knowing that his Vice Presidential pick was likely to be unqualified, and certainly had not been vetted. This is NOT a quality I want in a President. There were other pluses and minuses, but overall I was very disappointed by this man.
Sarah Palin lived up to my intuitive expectations.
As for my scorecard: If I had the advantage of knowing the gory details inside each campaign at the time, the scorecard would have been a little different, and I'd like to think I would have supported a different candidate. And as for your scorecard? Well, you'll have to read the book.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Monday, March 29, 2010
The Tea Party is in the Wrong Game
You gotta love the Tea Party. Not the group itself, mind you, but the blood bath they are trying to incite. Washington D.C. needs a jolt, the Tea Party is hoping to give it to them, and the rest of us are in it both for the entertainment value, and to reap any benefits they might sew. If the Tea Party succeeds, it will have measurable influence in shaping the 112th congress (in 2012) and the country will be well on its way to perfection. But that's a big IF, and perfection is in the eye of the beholder.
The Tea Party, as I see it, is a group of political mercenaries. They might be able to bloody the playing field (a good thing), and might even be credited for a short list of casualties, but after the next election cycle, I think the party will be over. Oh sure, some will try to keep it alive, but it's only a matter of time before no one will care anymore.
The Tea Party itself (as of today anyway) is too radical, shallow, and immature to survive. They behave like they're at war with the establishment, but they'll soon learn that they're in a world-class game of chess instead. It's the amateurs against the professionals...the NBA against Guatemala at the Olympics! The board is already setup, and some of the pawns are on the move. More and more incumbents are expressing compassion for the angry electorate, and you can bet their messaging machines will be hard at work to calm the storms. So while the Tea Party is firing off empty one-liners, the establishment will be moving forward with proven strategies for winning hearts and minds.
The real test for the Tea Party is its ability to endorse winning candidates. Assuming it survives this test, what specifically does the movement expect from these candidates? Will anyone be able to live up to undefined (or maligned) expectations? If the candidates endorsed by the Party become election casualties, as is speculated, the party will be over. Why? Because the group doesn't offer anything new to the political system. They don't bring a new ideology, new principles from which to govern, or new solutions. If they can't impose real influence, the movement will decay into dry leaves blowing in the wind.
What is this movement about anyway?
From what I can tell the Tea Party is against taxes; against health care reform; believes we need to bring "common sense" back to governance; the federal governments role should be limited, and of course, it believes that we need to kick the bums out of office (i.e. in their minds the democrats). Well, it's pretty hard to argue with any of that, so what's my problem? It's not new, and it's hyperbole! What specifically are they proposing to do in order to solve [any of] our complex problems? Is the government supposed to do nothing? Is that their answer? Just say screw it, not my problem! Even incumbent Republicans can do better than that.
How did the movement get this far?
The only reason their rhetoric has gained a following is because we have an angry segment of the populace who want to be heard, and the Tea Party is riding this wave of anger. This is an important point. The Tea Party isn't leading a movement with a message people can believe in, it simply ceased an opportunity to coral a wave of anger and discontent. In other words, it's following the anger, not leading with better solutions. Combine this with self-indulgent media coverage (Category="Entertainment", Subcategory="News"). The media loves a good cock fight, so they give it good coverage, egg it on, and voila, it looks like the Tea Party is a real force. The media savors the juicy content and milks it until the cow gives no more. Everyone's a winner!
What's next?
I'm angry, and I want to be heard too. But I also know that ears don't work very well when someone is screaming at them. Sometimes it takes some noise to get attention, but once ears are focused in your direction, it behooves you to say something that matters. Either the Tea Party doesn't get this point, or they don't have anything substantive to say; either way, if they don't figure this out soon, it will be check, and mate!
The Tea Party, as I see it, is a group of political mercenaries. They might be able to bloody the playing field (a good thing), and might even be credited for a short list of casualties, but after the next election cycle, I think the party will be over. Oh sure, some will try to keep it alive, but it's only a matter of time before no one will care anymore.
The Tea Party itself (as of today anyway) is too radical, shallow, and immature to survive. They behave like they're at war with the establishment, but they'll soon learn that they're in a world-class game of chess instead. It's the amateurs against the professionals...the NBA against Guatemala at the Olympics! The board is already setup, and some of the pawns are on the move. More and more incumbents are expressing compassion for the angry electorate, and you can bet their messaging machines will be hard at work to calm the storms. So while the Tea Party is firing off empty one-liners, the establishment will be moving forward with proven strategies for winning hearts and minds.
The real test for the Tea Party is its ability to endorse winning candidates. Assuming it survives this test, what specifically does the movement expect from these candidates? Will anyone be able to live up to undefined (or maligned) expectations? If the candidates endorsed by the Party become election casualties, as is speculated, the party will be over. Why? Because the group doesn't offer anything new to the political system. They don't bring a new ideology, new principles from which to govern, or new solutions. If they can't impose real influence, the movement will decay into dry leaves blowing in the wind.
What is this movement about anyway?
From what I can tell the Tea Party is against taxes; against health care reform; believes we need to bring "common sense" back to governance; the federal governments role should be limited, and of course, it believes that we need to kick the bums out of office (i.e. in their minds the democrats). Well, it's pretty hard to argue with any of that, so what's my problem? It's not new, and it's hyperbole! What specifically are they proposing to do in order to solve [any of] our complex problems? Is the government supposed to do nothing? Is that their answer? Just say screw it, not my problem! Even incumbent Republicans can do better than that.
How did the movement get this far?
The only reason their rhetoric has gained a following is because we have an angry segment of the populace who want to be heard, and the Tea Party is riding this wave of anger. This is an important point. The Tea Party isn't leading a movement with a message people can believe in, it simply ceased an opportunity to coral a wave of anger and discontent. In other words, it's following the anger, not leading with better solutions. Combine this with self-indulgent media coverage (Category="Entertainment", Subcategory="News"). The media loves a good cock fight, so they give it good coverage, egg it on, and voila, it looks like the Tea Party is a real force. The media savors the juicy content and milks it until the cow gives no more. Everyone's a winner!
What's next?
I'm angry, and I want to be heard too. But I also know that ears don't work very well when someone is screaming at them. Sometimes it takes some noise to get attention, but once ears are focused in your direction, it behooves you to say something that matters. Either the Tea Party doesn't get this point, or they don't have anything substantive to say; either way, if they don't figure this out soon, it will be check, and mate!
Friday, March 26, 2010
Suffocating Inside the Obamacare Box
I haven't read the 2600+ pages of the bill, but from what I can tell it fails to deliver any creative solutions. It just throws money at a broken system. Ask Microsoft if throwing money at MSN or Windows Mobile has made them the leader in either of these markets. It hasn't.
I'm comfortable in believing that reform is necessary. But reform in my mind means stepping outside the box and trying to view the problem through a completely different lens. Our government needs to problem-solve like Google.
Google would start with root cause analysis--instead of focusing on why so many people can't afford health care, it would ask why they need so much of it to begin with. I'm betting that the bulk of health care costs are a result of avoidable, self-inflicted, lifestyle choices (poor choices that is).
So what kinds of outside the box ideas are floating around out there?
How about challenging why implementation of a "new system" has to be all or nothing. Why not implement in one volunteer state so its effectiveness can be evaluated, its problems fine-tuned prior to a national rollout. Worst case: the government is on the hook for an expensive health care solution in, say Utah, instead of the whole country. I haven't heard this one before, but it seems logical to me.
How about seriously considering if there's a place for elements of Harry Rosen's health care for his hotel employees. Yea it's bold, it may have flaws, but it has some major benefits and is clearly out of the box thinking. Is there a place for government incentives to stimulate this kind of individual responsibility?
While I'm not sold on all of his ideas, John Mackey (CEO of Whole Foods) offered this one that is new to me, and I like it:
"...revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren't covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program."
Mackey's article is definitely worth reading, if for no other reason than to learn how Whole Foods manages its health care costs--interesting.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not hearing anything like these risk management alternatives in Obamacare. From what I can tell it's pretty straight up: infuse more money, attempt to manipulate the free market, and create no incentives to improve individual responsibility (oh, I forgot, and pray a lot).
I'm comfortable in believing that reform is necessary. But reform in my mind means stepping outside the box and trying to view the problem through a completely different lens. Our government needs to problem-solve like Google.
Google would start with root cause analysis--instead of focusing on why so many people can't afford health care, it would ask why they need so much of it to begin with. I'm betting that the bulk of health care costs are a result of avoidable, self-inflicted, lifestyle choices (poor choices that is).
So what kinds of outside the box ideas are floating around out there?
How about challenging why implementation of a "new system" has to be all or nothing. Why not implement in one volunteer state so its effectiveness can be evaluated, its problems fine-tuned prior to a national rollout. Worst case: the government is on the hook for an expensive health care solution in, say Utah, instead of the whole country. I haven't heard this one before, but it seems logical to me.
How about seriously considering if there's a place for elements of Harry Rosen's health care for his hotel employees. Yea it's bold, it may have flaws, but it has some major benefits and is clearly out of the box thinking. Is there a place for government incentives to stimulate this kind of individual responsibility?
While I'm not sold on all of his ideas, John Mackey (CEO of Whole Foods) offered this one that is new to me, and I like it:
"...revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren't covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program."
Mackey's article is definitely worth reading, if for no other reason than to learn how Whole Foods manages its health care costs--interesting.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not hearing anything like these risk management alternatives in Obamacare. From what I can tell it's pretty straight up: infuse more money, attempt to manipulate the free market, and create no incentives to improve individual responsibility (oh, I forgot, and pray a lot).
McCain/Palin: Government Healthcare is a Right
McCain brought out the big gun for his campaign rally in Arizona today,Sarah Palin. I love the way she continues to use the term "common sense", as if her common sense should prevail over my common sense, or for that matter, what makes sense to half of the country. We're divided on so many issues, there is no such thing as common sense to all.
For me the most interesting comments came from McCain himself. Pounding his fists and yelling as best he can at his age, he boasts about his influence in fighting Obamacare (like he made a difference), he rambled-on, parroting the standard GOP talking points, then, and this is the real treasure, he yells: and they're going to take away Medicare for 330,000 seniors! "We can't let that happen!"
I'm not smart enough to know what's best for all of us as a country. I believe the Obamacare process has been so flawed that at a minimum it's unethical, and the idea of so many politicians holding out until they got the right price for their 'YES' vote makes me sick. In short, I believe in health care reform, just not this one.
As far as McCain goes, I wonder how many people at the rally asked themselves: how can McCain be against health care reform in the name of limited government, but in the same breath espouse Medicare as a right. Which is it? Does he believe in government run health care or not? Oh, I forgot, he was for it before he was against it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
