Obama's Gay Marriage Announcement

Yesterday (May 9, 2012), President Obama stated in an interview with ABC Television that he thought gay couples with healthy long-term commitments should be allowed to get married. What may have been lost in the reporting of this comment is that he called it his personal viewpoint. What he said is not official policy of the United States, but only a personal view that undoubtedly will influence many other people to have either a more positive or more negative opinion of the President. This was a classic Damned if you do and damned if you don't moment. It did show a lot of courage, but it may turn out to have been foolhardy from the viewpoint of political success in the next election. So long as Obama didn't define his stance, it was open to interpretation by all shades of the political spectrum. By declaring his position, he enhanced his standing with half of the voting public, but alienated the other half. This would have been true even if he had declared himself as being on the other side of this thorny debate. Therefore, I have to believe that Obama's public support of gay marriage has to be a statement of his conscience rather than being a political ploy. He gains nothing from it and may very well lose a lot. Whether or not this President gets re-elected, he has shown that he will take a stance on issues that most other politicians would remain ambiguous about.

The Future Is Now

People in many countries are depressed about the current economic situation and worried about the future. In the United States the two priorities are more jobs and less debt. Last night President Obama unveiled a new program to generate large numbers of jobs. There is also a high-level congressional bipartisan committee seeking new programs and program modifications to reduce the debt. The problem is that programs are not the answer. What we all need is information that builds our confidence in the future. When the two political parties each say that the other party has the wrong kinds of programs that will lead to a failing economy in the future, they are guaranteeing that failure by diminishing the confidence of the people. We need cheerleaders more than program architects. There are plenty of private companies with enough cash reserves to hire new employees. There are plenty of people looking for jobs. The companies won't hire people until they believe that hiring will lead to sales increases in the near future. Consumers won't spend until they are reasonably sure that their jobs are safe. If the government (including both parties in Congress) and the media would emphasize positive factors and developments instead of negative possibilities, the economy would respond with positive trends. There is no need to snipe at each other for the sake of an election. Positive thinking is contagious. Try it some time. We can assure a healthy future for our economies right now by implementing a positive outlook. 

Friends and Enemies

Which of these do you believe?

• The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
• The enemy of my friend is my enemy.
• The friend of my enemy is my enemy unless he/she belongs to my political party.
• The friend of my friend is my friend unless his/her political party is different from mine.
• What's good for the country is more important than what's good for my political party.
• What's good for my political party is by definition good for the country.
• What's good for me is by definition good for my party and country.
• Who cares about anyone else? Do what will get me reelected.
• I love everyone until after the votes have been counted.

The Most Obsolete Word in the English Language

It appears that the most terrible thing that a politician anywhere in the world can do is to use the word compromise. Politicians have become more doctrinaire than ever, with discussions described as stand-offs and any comment from a member of a different party described as belligerent, uninformed, and adversarial. A certain amount of defense of your position is good posturing as part of the negotiation process (See my book: DECISION TIME! Better Decisions for a Better Life.), but frequently politicians aren't negotiating at all, but merely trying to score points and develop issues for the next election. Compromise should be the lubricant that makes governments work. Bombast only succeeds in minimizing the public's respect for their elected and appointed officials. In many conversations I hear citizen members of both parties agree that solutions to national problems aren't that difficult if the people in power would only use the second most obsolete term in the English language, common sense. In the field of law, the yardstick for evaluating an action is frequently: What would a reasonable person do? Why can't politicians and government leaders (most of whom are lawyers) ask themselves that same question, and act upon their answers to it?

What Would Will Rogers Say?

As the pre-election idiocy winds down, each of the candidates is filling the TV airwaves with commercial messages lambasting his or her opponent as being completely unfit for election...My solution is to always hit the mute button when any political commercial comes on. Will Rogers said that he never met a man (or presumably a woman) that he didn't like. The current political commercials have the effect of having us voters not like any of them. None of the Above would win the election in a landslide. However, in keeping with the Will Rogers motto, I feel that I should have something positive to say about this election process. About all I can come up with is the suggestion that high-powered lawyers try to get a temporary injunction to delay the election for another month. The way these people are spending money on negative commercials, the economy would be in great shape after another month of this.

In the Kingdom of the Blind...

The old saying says: In the Kingdom of the Blind, the One-eyed is King. I always thought that saying was a bit wrong. I think it should be: In the Kingdom of the Blind, the One-eyed is Crazy.
Wouldn't the blind people think that the one-eyed person was talking about unbelievable things? I bring this up now because there is either an election or a mutual massacre about to happen. All the candidates spend all their time tearing into the opposition with false and misleading and outrageous statements. What would happen if one candidate actually spoke about what he or she would do to accomplish something for the people if he or she were elected? Would all the people rally to that candidate in relieved support? Would all of the political aggressors turn against such constructiveness? Could such a constructive candidate survive?...probably not. Just remember that we will be stuck with whomever wins. At this point I think that the American people and the country are going to lose no matter which backstabbing candidates win. Who wants to join me in organizing the None of the Above Party?

Post-Election Limerick B

Well-versed Senator Joe Biden
Spoke some words that he should have been hidin'.
Though he traveled the south
With his foot in his mouth,
To the VP's big office he's ridin'.

Post-Election Limerick O

There was a young man named Obama
Who always debated much calmer.
He pulled out the race
With a smile on his face,
and a loving goodbye to Grandmama.

Stop It Right Now!

Remember the old saying, "Nero fiddled while Rome burned"? The same thing is happening right now, and I'm getting pretty tired of it. Our beloved presidential candidates are throwing character assassination brickbats at each other while our economy and the economies of the rest of the world are falling apart. If you have answers for our problems, tell us. If you are going to behave like nasty little kids, do it somewhere offstage, because we don't want to hear about it. There are serious problems, and the American people want to know what you have to contribute to their solution...Lead, Follow, or Get out of the way!

September Should be Two Months Long

Here we are again in September, the busiest and most promising month of the year. This is the month when the hot weather of summer gives way to a period when you can comfortably catch up with all of those chores and home improvements that you would like to get done before winter. Unfortunately, it is also the month when students have to get back into the school groove. Politicians are panicking because there isn't much time before the general election. Baseball teams are in the home stretch while football teams are just beginning to play "real games that count". The month is full of birthdays of babies conceived on New Years Eve or in the depth of winter. This is the month that is the beginning of the academic year, and as such is full of promise like all beginnings. Plan-ahead types are starting to do their Christmas shopping, and many stores are enticing them with displays of Christmas decorations long before we have come to Halloween or Thanksgiving. Churches are having "Rally Days" to attract worshippers and Sunday Schoolers back after summer vacations. Business Management is relieved because they got through the short-handedness of summer vacations. People are looking forward to fall foliage, but not to preparations for the cold winter ahead. Final fall weekend trips are in the planning stages. Car dealers are trying to sell off the old models before the new ones fill their showrooms. And I'm trying to finish off my first mystery novel manuscript before starting the sequel...Viva September!

Mystery People

Within a very short time the presidential race will move into its next stage with the naming of the two vice-presidential candidates. Obama is expected to announce his running mate by Saturday of this week in order to have everything in place for next week's Democratic convention. McCain will follow shortly afterward in order to take some of the press coverage away from the Democrats and their convention. Right now, the favorite media sport is speculating on the VP candidates. The press is narrowing in on three possibilities for the Democrats and three or four for the Republicans. Frankly, I would like the answer to be "None of the above" for this one, both because the people touted by the press are far from capable of shifting the campaigns into higher gears (and who needs more of the same?), and because I would like to see the presidential candidates outsmart the press. At this point I'm hoping that we're in for a pair of surprises...but maybe not of the Dan Quayle type.

The Year of the Veep?

The race for president is tightening up, and both sides need something that will generate a boost in the poll ratings and in voter interest. John McCain has succeeded in turning the media's attention to nitty-gritty details as opposed to Obama's long-term "Change" philosophy. They also both have potential liability aspects as voters weigh the impact of age and race on their decisions. The key to victory in this election may well be the identities of the two VP candidates. Each presidential candidate needs to choose someone who will: enhance their combined impact and stature (1+1=3); bring additional votes to the ticket that would not be likely for the presidential candidate alone; give geographic and/or demographic nationwide appeal to the ticket; and offset one or more perceived weaknesses of the top candidate. The selection of VP candidates who cover all of these criteria will be very difficult, but it very well may be critical to the results of the general election and to the perception of the electorate of the worth of each party's ticket. There have been several elections when I voted one way or the other because of my feelings for the vice-presidential candidate, and one or two where I wished the VP candidate was the one running for president. This year the election is going to be extremely close, and the VP candidates may make the difference. I also think that this year's election competition will go right down to the wire and will feature some high-impact last-minute surprises.

Figures Can Lie and Liars Can Figure

Every time you read an article about the forever ongoing presidential election campaign you see citations of statistics from the latest polls. Always remember to take these with a bit of scepticism, even when they show the result you prefer. If I were taking a poll of these matters, I could get totally different results from the same group of people if I simply changed the wording of my questions. For instance, "How troubling will Bill Clinton's presence in a new Clinton White House be for Hillary?" will lead to a totally different result from "Does Hillary Clinton have a great advantage because of Bill being with her in a new Clinton White House?" Similarly, "Does Barack Obama's having lived among people of many ethnic and national backgrounds give him an edge in understanding people from other countries?" will yield a different result from "Do you consider Barack Obama's limited experience in international negotiation meetings a liability?" Going to John McCain, you could ask "Do you think that John McCain's willingness to disagree with George Bush about tactics and spending shows that he would be an independent-minded President?" or you could ask "Do you think that John McCain's continued support of the Iraq war shows that his presidency would be more of the Stay the course mentality?"

Always remember to read the questions (if they even show them) when you examine poll results. In addition, you should look at as many polls as possible, and average the results to get more realistic figures.

Playing in the Mud

Once upon a time there were three kids playing in the mud at day camp. While they were having a break for milk and cookies, their counselor, George, asked them what they wanted to do when they grew up. John said, "I want to be just like you, George, and defend little kids from evil gangs." Barack said, "I want to change the world so that everyone will have an equal chance and there will be no acceptance of evil gangs." Hillary said, "I'm just going to keep playing in the mud forever."

John McCain's Campaign Loves Hillary Clinton

The old adage goes "You can't have your cake and eat it too." Someone should mention this to Hillary Clinton. She's getting meaner and more adversarial toward Barack Obama while at the same time saying it would be great if they were running mates for President and Vice President. The first translation of those comments is that it would be nice to be running mates so long as it would be Hillary for President and Barack for Vice President. The second translation is that she is implying that people should vote for her because they could get Barack too (as Vice President). Barack is being forced to fire back more shots at Hillary rather than just defensively responding to her offensives, and every time he does, her staff says he's being mean. If they keep it up, the public will get more than tired of it, and only John McCain's campaign will benefit from it. - And by the way, Hillary, that 3:00 AM phone call to the White House commercial just makes people think positively about John McCain.

Vice Presidential Candidates

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are in a tight race to the finish for the Democratic presidential nomination. Many have suggested that the winner select the loser as vice-presidential candidate. Things are clearer on the Republican side, but do you think John McCain should take Mike Huckabee as his vice-presidential candidate? Is it a good idea to have someone you have criticized to be your running mate? Will a Vice President who thinks he/she should really be the President be loyal and supportive. We have had cases in the past where this was done, and where it worked out well. There have also probably been some cases where it was a disaster. A Vice President who had tried for the top job is certainly more likely to be acceptable to the people as President if succession is necessary than a complete unknown who was selected for loyalty rather than for competence. On the other hand, does a President feel safe and secure with an ambitious rival in the number two job? What do you think?

New Hampshire Presidential Primary

One of the most interesting decision situations takes place tomorrow in New Hampshire. This is the first presidential primary election with individuals walking into a voting booth and casting a secret ballot. Each person who votes will have been subjected to many persuasive arguments from all the candidates as to the superiority of one and the inferiority of all the rest. Some will vote based on the arguments; some will vote based on the personal impression generated by a candidate; and some will monitor the polls and go with the front-runner in order to be on the winning side. In the back of his or her mind, each voter will know that a New Hampshire primary vote is weightier than individual votes in later states, because it helps to generate momentum for the winning candidate which may make him or her unstoppable later. This year the primary season is amazingly compacted. After she came in third in the Iowa caucuses, Hillary Clinton was quoted as saying, I'm in this all the way to February fifth.
Given the fact that the candidates expect the primary races to be all over in less than a month, the New Hampshire voter will indeed be an important indicator of the ultimate outcome. This is true regardless of comments about demographic distinctions between New Hampshire and other states. People get excited about a winner, and that excitement will carry forward for a period of time before it wanes. Given the short period of time between the New Hampshire primary and February fifth, it will be very difficult for other candidates to overcome the excitement generated by the New Hampshire winners in time to stage a successful comeback.