Bill Richardson's Big Money

As Obama prepares to name Bill Richardson as his Commerce Secretary, Politico.com highlighted Richardson's less than clean slate during his time working for companies in the public sector.

During the two years between Richardson’s time as former President Bill Clinton’s Ambassador to the United Nations and his election as Governor of New Mexico, he joined many corporate boards in the energy sector (he had previously been Secretary of Energy) and received tons of money from them.

During the campaign, Obama pledged to end the revolving door between government and the influence industry, proclaiming in a speech featured on his campaign website that “you will not be able to lobby and cash in on service in my administration.”

By nominating Richardson, Obama again is going back on his word for “change.” Obama has continually nominated ‘experienced’ candidates instead of bringing in the new faces, and new vision which would look to people from outside of Washington.

Did we vote for ‘Change’ or ‘More Of The Same?’

Why Don't We Hang Pirates Anymore?

A few days ago, Wall Street Journal columnist, Bret Stephens, wrote an article entitled "why don't we hang pirates anymore?" - regarding the world's failed attempts to curb piracy in international waters in the 21st century.

"Year-to-date, Somalia-based pirates have attacked more than 90 ships, seized more than 35, and currently hold 17. Some 280 crew members are being held hostage, and two have been killed. Billions of dollars worth of cargo have been seized; millions have been paid in ransom. A multinational naval force has attempted to secure a corridor in the Gulf of Aden, through which 12% of the total volume of seaborne oil passes, and U.S., British and Indian naval ships have engaged the pirates by force. Yet the number of attacks keeps rising."

The underlying problem seems to be that there is no underlying legal authority over this horrible problem. United States law only refers to instances in which American vessels are attacked and International law has very confusing verbiage which has made many conflicts complicated.

"Piracy, of course, is hardly the only form of barbarism at work today...and our collective inability to deal with it says much about how far we've regressed in the pursuit of what is mistakenly thought of as a more humane policy." A society that erases the memory of how it overcame barbarism in the past inevitably loses sight of the meaning of civilization, and the means of sustaining it.

How Obama Got Elected

I consider myself a rational Republican - fiscally conservative and socially moderate. I do not scorn Democrats for our differences but instead look to build bridges and find common ground. This video however really demonstrates the problem with allowing anyone to vote. These people are so ill-informed that it disgusts me. The Founding Fathers would watch this video and vomit at the trash coming out their mouths.

"Let Detroit Go Bankrupt"

The United States is facing the most challenging economic climate in decades – the housing market is slumping, the credit market is nonexistent, and many of America’s largest businesses are suffering so much that they have asked both the American Government and Sovereign Wealth Funds for bailouts. In fact, the CEOs of General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler testified before Congress yesterday in an effort to convince U.S. Representatives to approve a $25 billion bailout of the Big Three car companies.

Yesterday morning, former Republican Presidential candidate and native Michigander Mitt Romney published an op-ed in the New York Times entitled “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.” At a time when the American people and American businesses are looking for government handouts during a time of trouble, this op-ed is one of the few instances which paint reality instead of political correctness. Governor Romney kept his Republican nomination hopes alive by winning the Michigan Primary, so why would he make such a bold statement now against the main industry of his home state? As a private equity investor, Romney sought to build great companies and fix broken ones. The government should not write a check to postpone the demise of struggling companies – it should work to fix them, soften the current tax and fuel efficiency burdens placed upon American car companies, and invest in research so we can deliver products that customers want to buy at affordable prices.

Despite the controversial title, his piece outlines the basic faults of the American business climate – lack of innovation, short sidedness, and poor business practices – and proposes that the only way to truly get them running again is through a managed bankruptcy which would enable companies to streamline excess labor as well as pension and real estate costs.

America’s greatness has been derived by resilience in the face of adversity. American car companies need more than a facelift. “Management as is must go.” New leaders should be recruited from unrelated industries. The government should not simply write a check – there should be cross-industry collaboration. New leadership should excel in marketing, innovation, creativity and labor relations.

We also need new labor agreements. Our international counterparts are able to produce cars for lower wages and are winning market share from The Big Three. The former head of the United Automobile Workers, Walter Reuther, acknowledges that “getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street.” The U.A.W. needs to set a new course – designed around profit sharing and stock grants to employees. There can no longer be resentment between workers and management. As workers accept salary cuts, executives must also make sacrifices and get rid of planes and fancy dinners. People must agree to “sanity in salaries and perks.”

One of the biggest things holding American companies back is the focus on short-term stock price instead of long term growth. Investments must be made for the future. Management should receive bonuses for growing market share, increasing product quality and customer satisfaction in addition to standard profit measures, not quarterly stock price increases.

In the 2004 movie, Man on Fire, Christopher Walken’s character notes that “a man can be an artist at anything, food or whatever if you’re good enough at it. Creasy's art is death, and he's about to paint his masterpiece!” American car companies need help and they need it quickly. Governor Romney should swallow his pride about losing the nomination for President and take the helm of one of America’s struggling companies. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check. It is time for America’s great turnaround artist to paint his masterpiece.

You Think College Applications Are Difficult...

For all of the negative comments I have made about our newly elected 44th President of the United States, no one can fault him for running an extraordinary campaign. President-elect Obama’s transition team issues a 63-question application to potential applicants for federal government positions. Their attention to detail and commitment to hiring the best, most qualified, and most ethical candidates assuages some of my concern for Obama’s lack of executive experience.

Good campaign transition teams are determined to protect their boss from the embarrassment and distraction of a bungled nomination to one of the country’s top jobs. “In this process, you're guilty until proven innocent," says Paul Light, a professor at New York University's Wagner Graduate School of Public Service. Obama's lawyers are asking candidates to dig deep and come forward with some of the most private details of their personal and professional lives — as well as those of their spouses. An e-mail that could be embarrassing? An old diary entry that makes you blush? A loan you're not proud of? A late tax payment? An arrest? These questions are all on Obama's 63-item background questionnaire, and the word to those competing for top jobs is that they better cough up the answers now because the information will surely come out later. You must ask these questions, because there should be no surprises in the White House.

Some political observers say Obama’s caution with respect to recruiting new administration officials and key high-level advisers may be turning away a string of qualified candidates wary of subjecting themselves and their families to the most rigid presidential vetting process on record. David Gergen, an adviser to four past presidents describes the questionnaire as “extremely invasive.” In the age of technology and at a time when many are skeptical of our nation’s leaders, this process must be transparent both to the new administration and the American people. People who want to serve 300 million Americans and the leader of the free world must prove that they are capable of handling this responsibly and ethically.

I applaud Obama for his thorough approach to this process, but am disheartened that his apparent commitment to “change” has thus far yielded little more than Clinton administration alumni. Obama is hiring people with more Washington experience and less far-left ideology – the opposite of what his supporters thought they would get. I have written many times about my view that our national leaders should be smarter, better qualified, more experienced, and more ethical than the average citizen. I believe that the American government should stay out of people’s day-to-day lives, but the President of the United States needs to know that his team is ready to lead and will not embarrass his administration. It is an honor and a privilege to serve your country. Those who are uncomfortable taking responsibility for their actions and disclosing details of their private lives need not apply.

"...whether you like it or not"

Gay couples were not the only losers in Tuesday’s passage of Proposition 8 which now forbids gay marriage in the state of California. San Francisco Mayor, Gavin Newsom, a frontrunner for Governor in 2010 bore the brunt of the anti-gay marriage movement. Newsom is widely seen as an up-and-comer in the California Democratic Party but his climb to prominence became that much more difficult this week as the California electorate proved it disagrees with his stance on gay marriage.



“…whether you like it not.” Those five words helped shore up his support in San Francisco but may prove to be his political Waterloo. On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court struck down a ban on gay marriage. In celebration, Newsom held a rally at which he exclaimed “as California goes, so goes the rest of the nation. It's inevitable. This door's wide open now. It's going to happen, whether you like it or not.”

Since May, he has not backed down from his steadfast support of gay rights and gay marriage but has tried fruitlessly to get out of the spotlight on this controversial issue. He presided over a lesbian wedding only to find out that school children were in attendance. And most recently and most importantly, Newsom became the punching bag for Yes on 8 campaign. They bought millions of dollars in advertisements which displayed his rally cry and used it to invigorate their supporters.

Despite California being considered a very liberal state, the vote on gay marriage was split instead on racial lines much more so than by political lines. African Americans and Hispanics voted for Barack Obama but then voted Yes on 8. In favorability polling conducted this week, Newsom has a very slim margin of favorability among Democrats and an abysmally negative favorability among Republicans. Despite his support in San Francisco and his support by the California Democratic elite, Newsom will have a very difficult time being elected. Over the next two years, the field of serious gubernatorial contenders will emerge. It will fascinating to see whether Newsom can play up his economic and healthcare revivals of San Francisco or whether people will see him as the steadfast supporter of an unfavorable issue.

Palin 2012?

Barack Obama will be elected the 44th President of the United States on Tuesday, and jockeying for inside position to become the Republican Party’s 2012 nominee will begin Wednesday morning. As a diehard Republican, I don’t understand why my party seems to be drawn to those who are common and folksy. Should we not instead be striving for greatness? Republicans talk about the horrible state of education in this country, yet vilify leaders who have achieved great things. Should we discourage parents from inspiring their children to attend Harvard or Princeton? I worry that as America faces bigger challenges and greater obstacles than at anytime in recent memory, the GOP will nominate another fruitless leader in four years.

At this time of impending difficulty, do you think that attending four colleges in five years to earn a journalism degree and being mayor of a city with the population of two average-sized California high schools prepares you to be President of the United States? I think not. Governor Sarah Palin brushes off her lack of intellect and plays up her desire to be seen as a common person and “hockey mom.” She claims that her experience as Governor of Alaska has proven her ‘instinct’ to make tough decisions. There are 300 million people in the United States. Shouldn’t we be able to elect someone who has both? I am not suggesting that the President needs a PhD, but we should elect people with gravitas. Unfortunately, Democrats know it when they see it and Republicans tend to mock it when they do.

Regardless of the outcome of Tuesday’s election, Palin will surely challenge Governors Mitt Romney and Bobby Jindal for the Republican nomination in four years. Let’s compare –Romney ran the most successful private equity firm of all time and delivered healthcare to every citizen in Massachusetts, Jindal helped lead the Department of Health and Human Services and was in charge of the Louisiana State School system, and our current Vice Presidential nominee shoots moose and spends $150,000 on wardrobe additions.

Palin is attractive, ambitious, and conservative, but completely inexperienced on the national and international stages. With President Obama running what is likely to be an enlarged government that spends more on social programs than ever, four years from now the GOP will likely turn to the most anti-government, anti-Washington candidate since Barry Goldwater. Palin is loved by talk radio and Fox News conservatives because of her pure conservative beliefs. As a former Vice Presidential nominee, she will be the best-financed candidate other than Romney and will be anointed by energy interests threatened by Obama’s green initiatives. She draws Obama-size crowds and will appeal to rural voters in the Iowa Caucuses and South Carolina Primary.

My party needs a reality check. We must strive for excellence – not mediocrity, and recognize leadership – not simply familiarity. America has some ominous years ahead, and if we are going to continue to be the last, best hope of the world, voters need to choose the smartest, most experienced, most capable, and outstanding leader they can find, not the person most like their coworker or next door neighbor. Voters may feel they can relate to Governor Palin, but would you want to elect your next door neighbor as Vice President of the United States? I surely would not.

BTW I'm Voting for McCain / Palin

The Audacity of Arrogance

And Barack said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. As a Republican, losing the White House is not my greatest concern – it is the tremendous arrogance of the leader that Americans appear ready to hand the reins of our government to. At a fundraiser last week, Senator Obama said, “contrary to rumors you may have heard, I was not born in a manger…I was actually born in Krypton and sent here by my father, Jor-el, to save planet Earth.” He may have been joking, but Superman? I think not.

Arrogance is a common vice in presidential politics. As Frank James noted in The Swamp, “anyone who runs for president of the U.S. must, by definition, have an ego that vastly outstrips that of most other mortals.” However, has there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his self-estimation and the sum total of his life achievement? Obama is a three-year senator without a single important legislative achievement to his name. As editor of the Harvard Law Review, a law professor, and an Illinois legislator, his most memorable work is a biography of his favorite subject, himself.

In displays of demonstrative arrogance, Obama created his own version of the Presidential seal, accepted his nomination in front of pillars as if to position him as immortal amongst sheer commoners, and crafted a campaign slogan that oozes arrogance. “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for” actually means, “I am the one we’ve been waiting for.” In his nomination acceptance speech, Obama declared it a great turning point in history – “generations from now we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment…the rise of the oceans began to slow.” Economist Irwin Stelzer noted in his London Daily column, “Moses made the waters recede, but he had help.” Obama apparently works alone.

With the election 19 days away and the economy in recession, Senator Obama is poised for what some predict will be a blowout victory over Senator John McCain. America needs a leader to guide it through one of the darkest periods in recent history. Our relations with other countries are suffering, our housing market has collapsed, companies cannot borrow new loans and struggle to pay off existing ones, and overall Americans are worried about the future. Obama has had an extraordinary campaign strategy – use high-flying, optimistic rhetoric to appeal to an electorate disillusioned with our current administration. But we need someone to DO president, not just BE president. We need a leader, but none are running.

Winston Churchill famously said, “the best argument against democracy is five minutes with the average voter.” Ask the average American voter about Obama’s stance on various issues and they will not score very well. Ask them who will bring change, Obama scores off the charts. Obama claims he will change the world. But what has he done to bring change in his political career so far? He has a lackluster Illinois State Senate record and a blank U.S. Senate record (voting “present” nearly 130 times). Obama claims to be able to work with fellow Republicans, but he has never done so before. Why should we believe he would do so now? Obama claims to understand everybody’s views and positions himself as a moderate, but he has been ranked the #1 most liberal Senator for the last three years.

Unfortunately, I, along with many Americans, am not thoroughly excited by either choice, as evidenced by the fact that a geriatric Senator with no personality who is disliked by his own party is only a few points behind the most popular Senator and biggest celebrity in American politics today. I worry that Americans will overlook Obama’s extreme hubris, extremely liberal ideas and lack of accomplishments and be stuck for the next four years with a man who will spend more time boosting his own ego than our struggling economy.

Worst Debate Ever? A Long Way From 1858

Until the Seventeenth Amendment was passed in 1913, United States Senators were elected by their states’ legislatures. In 1858, the Illinois Legislature was up for reelection with the controlling party being able to fill the open Seat. Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglass represented their respective parties in a sequence of debates focused mainly on slavery which have come to be widely remembered as the greatest exhibitions of public debate in American history.

Tuesday night’s Presidential debate between Senators John McCain and Barack Obama was one of the dullest and most boring debates in American history. The headline on the DrudgeReport Wednesday morning read, “The Worst Debate Ever.” We are facing one of the most pivotal times in American history – we are fighting two wars in the Middle East, the housing market is in shambles, and the stock market has plunged. Now is not the time for political posturing and lackluster debate. It is the time for someone, anyone to lead.

In Lincoln’s day, they had to rely on newspapers to distribute their message. With technology today, millions of people can watch the candidates ducking, dodging, and making excuses live on television and the internet. The entire debate was reiterating stump speeches and avoiding mistakes instead of looking the American public in the eye and properly addressing how to fix the state of our great nation.

The framers of the Constitution never intended for lifetime politicians. They intended that outstanding lawyers, doctors, businessmen, and teachers would put their personal careers aside for a few years to serve their country and then return to private life. The American government has been locked in stagnancy because everyone is so damn worried about the political consequences and winning the next election – rather than actually about achieving anything.

Senator Obama has been running for President since he became Editor in Chief of the Harvard Law Review. He has been focused on doing and saying everything right for the past twenty years. When John McCain came back from Vietnam as a war hero, he found his wealthy bride and her father bought him his Congressional seat. Sitting at the USC Football game yesterday, many people discussed how much they dislike both candidates.

At a time when we need leadership more than ever to preserve American life as we know it, we need to ask more of our leaders not less. The time for a true debate – one which demonstrates the actual differences in how both leaders would rebuild our country and return the U.S. to greatness – is now. I won’t hold my breath as these two lifelong politicians, with ZERO real world experience ask us for our votes while making sure that they never say anything to offend anyone. One of the difficult aspects of leadership is that taking a stand on something means other people will disagree. We should expect our leaders to tell us what they believe and why instead of allowing them to dodge telling us anything at all.

Nipping at the Heals of the Great Red Dragon

The May 9, 2005 cover of Newsweek magazine boldly declared the 21st Century to be “China’s Century.” With so much focus on the massive buildup to the 2008 Beijing Olympics and the upcoming 2010 Shanghai World Expo, all eyes have been fixed on China and its recent unparalleled economic boom. The often cited 2003 Goldman Sachs report entitled, “Dreaming with BRICs: The Path to 2050,” demonstrates how Brazil, Russia, India, and China will continue their rapid expansions and overtake many of the current economic superpowers over the next few decades. With all eyes focused on the Wall Street bailout plan, people have begun to question how long the American economy will continue to reign supreme. As economists and political pundits begin to discuss and debate the demise of American economic superiority, venture capitalists and hedge fund managers have begun to take note of potential growth investments in India and China. The world’s two most populous nations now possess the world’s fastest growing economies. China successfully used the Olympics to demonstrate its technological advances, precision, and discipline to the world. This exposé successfully captured the hearts and minds of most onlookers – many of whom now could not imagine investing in any foreign nation other than China. China’s massive reservoir of cheap, unskilled labor has led to its manufacturing dominance in recent years. While we experience China’s rise today, India’s rise is still more a tale of the future. As the world’s largest democracy, India possesses demographic, democratic, and capitalistic factors which may ultimately make it a better place for investment due to their market-driven economy and well-educated, English speaking, entrepreneurial population.

In the age of the Internet, constant communication, and rapidly developing technology, globalization has been thrust upon the world – ready or not. Many middle-aged American workers have seen the downside of globalization having lost their jobs to outsourced, cheap foreign labor. What many fail to realize is that globalization is simply another word for global capitalism – with each nation producing goods and services that give them a competitive advantage. One reason the United States is the richest country in the world is because it has been open to competition from around the world. Over the past sixty years, manufacturing employment has plummeted in the United States as those industries went abroad – yet the average American incomes remain the highest in the world. As globalization has become more prevalent over the past twenty years, American incomes have risen faster than those of any other major industrial country. Globalization highlights the weaknesses in a country’s economy and demonstrates how it must adjust and adapt in order to stay competitive.

Most people think China is the country with the strongest economic future. For decades, China and India plodded along under economic ideologies that favored the visible hand of government over the invisible hand of markets. Their economic systems stifled growth and left both countries very poor. However, in 1979 China embarked on economic reforms thirteen years ahead of India, and today all of the macroeconomic factors point in China’s favor. China’s per capita income of $2,500 is more than twice that of India’s. It owns more than $1 trillion of foreign securities, produces more steel, and builds skyscrapers and highways faster than India. With all of the hype about the Chinese economy, it is not surprising that it currently attracts more than five times as much foreign investment as India. In the past twenty-five years, China has lifted over 300 million of its citizens out of poverty. Meanwhile forty percent of the world’s poor reside in India, as do the second largest number of people with HIV.

The significant differences between the Indian and Chinese political systems demonstrate how their economies have and will continue to develop. China has grown under the decree of the Communist Party. It has had very active central and local governments directing economic activity. These planned and directed investments have led to the impressive modernization of cities like Shanghai. The drivers of economic activity in China are state-owned enterprises, semi state-owned enterprises, and foreign enterprises. Showmanship and central planning are central pillars of traditional Communist ideology so it is not surprising that the Chinese would follow in the Soviet Union’s steps of impressive buildup through ineffective allocations of capital. History demonstrates that although the market driven capital allocation may be unpleasant and uncontrollable, it has done a much better job than any government has been able to do through regulation. When western businesspeople hear that India is on the rise and visit expecting it to be next China, they find it is not at all like China. India’s growth will be bottom-up, driven by entrepreneurs and small business owners , not top-down growth like that created by the government in China. India’s growth is messy, chaotic, and largely unplanned. China has failed to develop several institutional processes and structures that ensure continuity and sustainability. By contrast, democracy, rule of law, and freedom of the press are well-entrenched in the Indian political economy. The Chinese government would never empower its citizens with the ability to create purely China-based private companies due to fears of dissent and thus relies on foreign investment partners to achieve its goals. While the Indian democracy has inefficiencies, it has had sixty years of stabile government in one of the least stable regions in the world at the same time that China continually combats political instability throughout its country.

China’s economy has instituted itself as the world’s great manufacturing power. As China debated how to grow its economy, it followed in the footsteps of Japan and South Korea which both launched their economic transformations by using abundant, low-wage labor to establish huge manufacturing businesses. China’s growth is primarily due to state-owned and foreign businesses located along its eastern coast. While the Chinese are phenomenal entrepreneurs abroad, entrepreneurship goes mostly undeveloped at home. The Chinese understand physical assets and commodities. They do not give as much value to knowledge and intellectual capital – economic sectors which India dominates today. China does little to nurture innovation and is driven by the ability to cheaply replicate foreign research and development. Forty-five percent of China’s workforce remains in the countryside and has not seen the effects of China’s great growth. While China continues to be the poster child of economic growth, its population continues to age faster than that of any other nation which will make it difficult to sustain such growth. Due to its rule which forbade families from having more than one child, more people retire each year than enter the work force which is leading to a shrinking workforce and will make it difficult for China to continue its booming manufacturing growth. On the other hand, India has a very different work force primed for an economic boom of its own.

India knew it would not be able to compete head-to-head with Chinese manufacturing and instead decided that its global competitive advantage lay in the services business. India’s choice of a service economy had good timing – the Internet and rising global income increased both the supply and demand for services. Companies worldwide are exploiting new technology by moving services work abroad to low-wage economies and as the technology boom continues, India continues to reap the benefits. As China’s workforce declines, India’s is exploding – 25% of the world’s under-25 population lives in India. More importantly, due to its British influence, India possesses huge numbers of English-speaking workers who are very familiar with Western culture. India is driven by private-enterprise. The American economy has been the envy of the world for many years. In addition to bridging a potential language barrier, India has learned the lessons of the American Dream by the huge numbers of Indian-Americans who have returned to India with money, investment ideas, global standards, and most importantly – a sense that one could achieve anything. In fact today, India has the second-most entrepreneurs per capita, meaning the largest number of entrepreneurs in the world. China is working as hard as it can, but India has the definitive advantage in language and cultural compatibility. As much as China does not appreciate intellectual capital, India glorifies it. India has vibrant information technology, pharmaceutical, and engineering-based knowledge industries.

In all fairness, both India and China will both continue to rapidly grow over the next several decades despite their many flaws. Both countries will be successful and neither will be the leader in all industries. The essence of private equity is being able to take an idea, product, or service and use outside capital to enable the company to grow in ways it never before thought possible. The job of a successful investor is to find the gaps in developing industries which are under-funded and primed for growth. The healthcare industry in India is a prime example of where private equity investment could fill a void in society while simultaneously being a very lucrative investment. India has the healthcare infrastructure to benefit from Western medical technology and services that have never before filled its hospitals. The most successful ideas recognize a void or an opportunity before anyone else does. Service businesses are very attractive to private equity firms because they are often sustainable and high margin. Manufacturing businesses are more of a gamble because they rely on cheap labor which will continually be moved to the location which supplies the highest volume of labor at the cheapest wage. Right now, that country is China, but as their economy grows and their citizens desire a higher standard of living, it is very likely that Chinese manufacturing may be outsourced to other emerging economies like Vietnam and others. Today however, China’s workforce is the largest and cheapest in the world and so in the short run, they will prove to be a strong investment. Currently, references to private equity investment in these nations refer to the goods and services these countries can produce and export to the world. The true promise that India and China provide to investors is the rapid development of their internal markets and growth of their middle classes which will soon seek the same standard of living as everyone else in the world. Investments should be instead focused not on how much the country can export but how much can be consumed by the 2.5 billion people that live there. The great economic expansion has been the pride and joy of the Chinese government, but at some point their controlled growth policies will limit a seemingly limitless economy. China will need to be less involved in capital markets and take less authority over companies situated there in order for their country to extemd its phenomenal growth. India on the other hand must improve its secondary education, infrastructure, and water shortages. It has several Silicon Valleys already booming within its borders, but it also has several Nigerias. India also must get its poverty and HIV under control. If it is able to improve some of these negatives, the Indian population has the skills, understanding of Western culture, and entrepreneurial spirit to be a very successful 21st century economy. The debate over whether globalization will make China or India a better place to invest needs to not focus on which country is better, but instead be focused on how the individual strengths and weaknesses of each nation would impact specific investments.

Pelosi's Ad-Lub

With the bailout plan poised to pass over the weekend, Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, walked from her lush Cannon House Office Building suite towards the floor. With prepared remarks in hand that had been distributed to the press, the Speaker fumed as she walked past her Republican colleagues. With what had been weeks of heated debate despite pledges toward bipartisan cooperation, Pelosi could not resist the temptation to jab her counterparts.

As Pelosi was given time to speak, she deviated from her prepared remarks and inserted two significant, partisan sections:

"When President Bush took office, he inherited President Clinton's surpluses — four years in a row, budget surpluses, on a trajectory of $5.6 trillion in surplus. And with his reckless economic policies within two years, he had turned that around ... and now eight years later the foundation of that fiscal irresponsibility, combined with an anything-goes economic policy, has taken us to where we are today. They claim to be free-market advocates when it's really an anything-goes mentality, no regulation, no supervision, no discipline. ..."

"... Democrats believe in a free market ... but in this case, in its unbridled form as encouraged, supported by the Republicans — some in the Republican Party, not all — it has created not jobs, not capital, it has created chaos."

Did these two inserts sway enough votes to make the bailout package fail? Probably not – despite the press conference held afterwards by Republican leadership blaming Pelosi’s comments for the failed bill. But come on Nancy…for the past 15 years Republicans and Democrats have engaged in nuclear warfare and look where it has gotten us – into a mess. Can we not for a few months (dare I say years) work together to fix the sizable problems our country is facing? This is a elementary school spitball contest. It is ‘he-said, she-said.’ Pelosi – you are supposed to be the leader of the United States House of Representatives. Would you please actually lead my country?

Antonin Scalia on 60 Minutes

In an age when the media reports on Lindsay Lohan’s latest exploits and Presidential candidates focus on ‘lipstick on a pig’ during one of the most tumultuous times in American history, I don’t often enjoy watching the nightly news.

I was fortunate to catch the 60 Minutes feature on Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Sunday. Long known as a social conservative and a right-leaning Justice, Scalia has often come under fire for his “ultra-conservative” positions and resistance to change. Without having taken the time to look into his background, I accepted these claims at face value. What began as an interview to hype his new book turned out to be an exposé into the Scalia world view and judicial “originalism.”

Scalia interprets the Constitution based on what he believes it originally meant to our Founders who ratified it in 1787 – as opposed to many who interpret what it means to people today. America is one of the few nations in the world that follow common law which incorporates facts and rulings from various cases into the law as a way of keeping governmental power separate and balanced among the three branches. Unlike many so-called activist judges, Scalia does not seek to push an agenda, he hopes to restrict agendas. “The Constitution is not meant to facilitate change, it is meant to impede change.” Progress should instead come by enacting laws which incorporates compromise. Scalia went on to describe his views on flag burning, abortion, and torture.

It was disrespectful how the host, poked and prodded Scalia about the Bush v. Gore case in 2000. She asked him if the decision was based on politics, was it political, did it have political implications. It was frustrating to watch. Regardless of your view of whether or not Bush would have won under a recall, the Supreme Court case was not close. “Get over it. It’s so old by now. The principal issue in the case was whether the scheme the Florida Supreme Court had put together to stop the recount was Constitutional was not even close – 7-2.”

One of my favorite segments of the show was the discussion of the deep friendship between Justice Scalia and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. They are two people who hold fundamentally opposite political views and interpret the Constitution very differently. “I respect the people who have (other views), but I think those views are just flat out wrong…I attack ideas, I don’t attack people and some very good people have some very bad ideas.” Scalia is a street-fighter. A self-professed ‘shin-kicker’ and contrarian thinker, Justice Scalia has provided America with the judicial discourse that the Founders had intended for the Supreme Court. As I sat and watched Scalia discuss his world view, the thing that impressed me most was the fact that these Supreme Court Justices – brilliant men and women – can peacefully discuss issues from very different perspectives and at the end of the day have a glass of wine together.

Our Founders intended for us to disagree. They intended for big complex ideas to be debated, discussed, and argued. They didn’t want radical change and so they separated powers and tried to impede potential changes. I disagree with Scalia on some things and agree with him on others, but his originalist view of the Constitution which resists radical change is important in an ever-faster changing world.

Obama Photo Op

If you want a photo-op with the American flag...at least hold the phone right side up.

What do the top ten cities with the highest poverty rate all have in common?

Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961;

Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn't elected one since 1954;

Cincinnati, OH (3rd)...since 1984;

Cleveland, OH (4th)...since 1989;

Miami, FL (5th) has never had a Republican mayor;

St. Louis, MO (6th)....since 1949;

El Paso, TX (7th) has never had a Republican mayor;

Milwaukee, WI (8th)...since 1908;

Philadelphia, PA (9th)...since 1952;

Newark, NJ(10th)...since 1907.

Albert Einstein once said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

It is the disadvantaged who habitually elect Democrats --- yet are still disadvantaged.

Door Opener and Bridge Builder

One of the most overlooked aspects of American history is the tension that has existed between democracy and theocracy ever since the Mayflower landed in Plymouth almost 400 years ago. The Pilgrims came to the New World to escape religious persecution but ultimately the U.S. Constitution is a secular document which declares the separation of church and state. In modern times, the counterculture of the 1960s and Roe v. Wade of the 1970s was followed by a religious backlash in the 1980s. Public religious figures have always played interesting roles in American history. Billy Graham was apolitical and was able to gain credibility and influence by not choosing political sides and advising the country on religious issues. Other religious leaders, such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, chose to use religion as political power to push conservative agendas.

In one of the most interesting events of the 2008 Presidential Election cycle, Senators John McCain and Barack Obama joined Evangelical Pastor Rick Warren for a civic forum at Saddleback Church in Orange County, California. Between the Jeremiah Wright scandal and the widely-held belief that he is somehow a closet Muslim, Barack Obama has had to repeatedly defend his faith throughout the Presidential campaign. On the other hand, McCain has been criticized for cheating on his first wife and is mistrusted by many conservatives for his moderate social views. The August 16 meeting of this trio seemed an unlikely cast for such an event.

This televised event was a coming out party for Warren who has seen tremendous success as a pastor, author and international networking guru. The forum coronated Warren as America’s most influential and highest-profile church leader. Unlike many religious leaders before him, Warren has clearly chosen to differentiate his stardom from the roles that some leaders from the religious right have played in the public arena. As William Martin, Billy Graham’s biographer notes, “It’s remarkable…the candidates are according him with tremendous status. I don’t see them doing it with an Episcopal bishop or a Cardinal – or another Evangelical.” It is a testament to Warren that both candidates who claim to be “above politics” have chosen to anoint him as the spiritual leader of America.

One of my pet peeves is when people do not say what they mean or mean what they say. It seems hypocritical for some church leaders to favor certain political candidates over others. If churches believe that people should have faith in God to care for us, then it should not matter who is in office; thus, church leaders should not campaign for candidates or care who wins. Stephen Mack notes the obvious hypocrisy: “By linking church and state, you don’t put God in charge of civil society but put the people in charge of the church.” What separates Warren from his fellow politically-active, conservative Evangelicals is his unabashed belief that the government is NOT the most effective way to change the world.

Many of the great movements of our time have been independent of politics. In the summer of 2007, President Bush awarded the Congressional Gold Medal to the father of the “Green Revolution”, Dr. Norman Borlaug, for his research in wheat dwarfing, a discovery which has vastly increased the efficiency of wheat growing and thus has significantly helped curtail global food shortages. Agree with him or not, former Vice President Al Gore shunned an opportunity to return to politics to instead pursue the fight against global warming. Politics focuses so much effort on winning and short term gains that the biggest problems of our time often do not get enough attention. This gap has empowered public intellectuals with the role of critiquing current cultural and political events as well as researching, publicizing, and pursuing new, untouched issues.

Despite being the author of the second highest-selling book of all time (after the Bible, with over 50 million copies sold), Warren has no desire to be rich and donates over 90% of his book royalties to Saddleback Church. Despite being the new leader of Christian Conservatives in America and being pastor of a 23,000-member congregation, he has no desire to wield political power, but he DOES want to change the world. His predecessors led Evangelicals to be a domestic political force, but Warren’s vision is to energize and unite churches around the world to be global benefactors. What makes Warren different is that when he talks about mobilizing Christians – he doesn’t mean just on election day nor is he referring only to American Christians – he is referring to the 1 billion Christians worldwide which he believes can join together to fight HIV/AIDS, water shortage, poverty, and hunger. To say the man is ambitious is an understatement.

Political events held in church settings often focus on what he calls “sin issues” – like abortion and gay marriage. The next President of the United States will have to restore Americans’ faith in the United States and repair the image of the U.S. around the world. The goal of political campaigns is to highlight the differences between candidates, but at the end of the day as Warren says, there is far more that unites us than divides us. The goal of his forum was not to gain political favor for either candidate or power for himself, but to draw awareness to the challenges facing the world over the next generation: poverty, HIV/AIDS, climate change, and human rights.

His insistence against choosing political sides will invoke criticism from some but overall will provide him with an unprecedented opportunity to affect sweeping changes in today’s most pressing issues. Public intellectuals from the present and future should take note of how Warren has risen to a position of influence. People recognize his credentials – leading a megachurch and authoring a best-seller – but they take him seriously because of his passion for world issues and his galactic vision about how to improve them. Many people enter the public square with academic credentials, but then politicize their issues and choose sides. Peter Beinart of the New Republic criticizes the use of religion in the public square, “It’s fine if religion influences your moral values. But, when you make public arguments, you have to ground them – as much as possible in reason and evidence…otherwise you can’t persuade other people, and they can’t persuade you.” Politicians lose credibility when their only argument in favor of or against an issue is religion. To retain credibility, Beinart suggests they should check religion at the door. In the same sense, priests who will not check their political views at the door also lose credibility. Rick Warren is showcasing his ability to affect change and get people to listen by focusing on the issues, not on the politics.

Some pastors preach and lead in a very formal matter. Warren has always acknowledged his sin and not tried to act above reproach. He preaches wearing a Hawaiian shirt and is passionate about contemporary worship music. He is a pastor of the people and his audience connects with him and his dreams because he seems like one of them. This down-to-earth and nonpartisan approach gives him credibility as the moral leader in America. Throughout history, religious strife has often divided nations against themselves. At a time when all factions of the American people needs more than ever to reunite under the stars and stripes to overcome some great challenges, I believe Rick Warren says he will be a “door opener and a bridge builder.” There is no doubt he will provide the next President of the United States with advice, wisdom, prayer, and a means to reach all people – regardless of whether they have a 'D' or an 'R' beside their name.

The Separation of Church and Politics

Every American student learns very early in grade school about our country’s religious freedom. The Founding Fathers formed a government based on the freedom to worship as they pleased.

America was no doubt founded on Christian principles but it is unfair to say that America was founded as a Christian nation. It is true that the Declaration of Independence mentions “Nature’s God,” “Creator,” and “Divine Providence,” but only in the context of presenting the idea that “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” – NOT to endorse Christianity. Contrary to popular opinion, “One nation under God” was not added to the pledge of allegiance until 1954 and “In God We Trust” was not printed on American currency until 1956. If we were truly a Christian nation, our governing document, the U.S. Constitution, would proclaim it. However, there is not a single mention of God or Christianity. In fact, The Bill of Rights forbade the creation of a state religion and permitted the free exercise of any religion by any and all of its citizens. The framers of our Constitution and of the “great experiment” were well aware of religious intolerance around the world and wanted no part of it so they wisely established the first government in history which separated church and state. In 1797, the American government under George Washington formed a treaty with Tripoli which said that the “government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” The Founding Fathers sought to create a democracy and meritocracy where people could freely worship whatever religion they chose. There was little tension between church and government for over one hundred fifty years until the Supreme Court’s ruling in 1948 (McCollum v. Board of Education) which declared that religious instruction in public schools is unconstitutional. Ever since, many Christian activists have fought hard to preserve their influence on society despite the ruling.

In the past sixty years, we have seen ever greater separation of church and state. Prayer, reading the Bible, and displaying the Ten Commandments have all been forbidden from public schools. Banning the teaching of evolution and requiring the teaching of creationism are now both unconstitutional as well. Despite these obvious separations of church and state, there has definitely not been separation of church and politics. As a backlash to the perceived secularism of the Supreme Court in the 20th century, religious conservatives have become more vocal and more active in making sure “thy will be done” in American politics.

Environmentalists are a special interest group; so is the National Rifle Association. Churches and religious organizations are NOT. Karl Rove is a political whiz and a brilliant campaign strategist but he dangerously energized the religious conservatives in America by convincing them that they are in fact a special interest group and need to stand up and do something about it.

By energizing the “base” of the Republican Party in such a way, religion has now become one of the most pertinent aspects of American voting. The Constitution’s one codified statement regarding religion says that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Although this statute refers to the eligibility to run for office, the American electorate continues to impose its own litmus test on candidates. Every election cycle, candidates from both parties are grilled on their faith and how it affects their morals and decisions. In 1960, then-Senator John F. Kennedy made his famous speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association to assuage concerns about his Catholic faith. In 2004, Democratic Presidential candidate, Governor Howard Dean, was derailed after being unable to name a book of the New Testament and admitting that he had not attended church in years. In 2008, Governor Mitt Romney was relentlessly criticized by Christian groups for his Mormon faith. It is outrageous that the American electorate reviews political candidates through such xenophobic glasses since our nation was founded on the concept that we elect candidates who are trustworthy, share our values and views, and have the intellect and leadership to represent our interests.

I do not for a moment want to suggest that I am anti-religion or realistically believe that religion and politics will ever be separated. Religion, ethics, and morality have had extremely positive effects on the American society. “It’s fine if religion influences your moral values. But, when you make public arguments, you have to ground them – as much as possible in reason and evidence…otherwise you can’t persuade other people, and they can’t persuade you.” Billy Graham is one of the most well-known and well-respected political figures in American history. He has been a very effective public intellectual – setting aside politics to assume the role of America’s pastor. In private letters with President Eisenhower, Graham offered Ike very nonpartisan advice advised about how to address racial injustice in America.

The often-mythical American Dream is supposed to enable a person with any background to work hard and their ambitions will come to fruition. What does it say then about the United States that we preach this American Dream but then footnote it by saying that if you are Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or an Atheist – your political aspirations are restricted – regardless of your ability or predilection to lead? I understand people’s attraction toward candidates that share their values – political, religious, or otherwise – but dismissing candidates based solely on race, religion, or gender is wrong. In two very similar speeches, Governor Mitt Romney and then-Senator John F. Kennedy made similar points – that faith and morality matter more than doctrine. The Bible tells us that we are all God’s children and He views us as equal. If the hypocrites would examine their own faith, they would recognize that not only the Constitution but the Holy Bible urges us to do so. If we truly are ‘all created equal’ and were treated as such, these men would not have needed to deliver such speeches.

In one sense, JFK broke the religion barrier in national politics in a similar fashion to how Jackie Robinson broke the race barrier in baseball. The difference is that after Robinson joined Major League Baseball, the door opened to many other African American athletes. Almost fifty years after JFK was elected, however, non-Christian politicians are still run out of town – regardless of their qualifications. I look forward to the day when candidates can say what they mean, mean what they say, and have an electorate vote for the right reasons.

The Misunderstood Great Leader of Our Time

In 2000, several polls demonstrated that voters would overwhelmingly prefer to have a beer with George W. Bush rather than Al Gore. During this 2008 election cycle, Governor Mike Huckabee said that he wanted to be a president “who reminds you of the guy you work with, not the guy who laid you off.” Whether or not you liked them personally, Presidents George W. Bush and Jimmy Carter, two recent “common man” Presidents, are atop various polls of the worst U.S. Presidents. So why do American voters continue to vote for common men?

I am proud of being a successful, young businessman, so I am always impressed when I have a chance to meet one of our country’s brilliant leaders. Even though I may choose to vote for a person who is similar to me and one who I can relate to, I don’t want to vote for a common man. I want to vote for someone who is smarter than me, has more leadership and executive experience, and one who has shown that he can and will make tough decisions to improve companies and government bureaucracies. That person is Mitt Romney.

On Thursday as the news stations hypothesized about who John McCain would pick as his Vice President, I traveled with Governor Romney’s fundraising team throughout Los Angeles and Orange County.

For the first hour we were together, I wasn’t sure if I should try to make conversation. It was very interesting to listen to him speak with his advisors. He watched Biden’s speech from the night before on an I-Phone and discussed the accuracy or lack thereof about Biden’s criticisms of McCain. He would have made an extraordinary Consultant-in-Chief. He looks, acts, and is Presidential. Romney’s critics called him a flip-flopper, but he was brilliant in his ability to research, evaluate and dissect issues and their ramifications. As he gathered more information, Romney was willing to change his mind. It takes leadership to admit when you are wrong. President Bush’s popularity is suffering because of his unwillingness to change his stance on issues.

I was surprised at the Governor’s great sense of humor. He was constantly cracking witty jokes, especially about LA traffic. At one point when we hadn’t moved in several minutes, he reached for the door handle and suggested we get out and walk. Because of our similar looks, one of his donors asked me if I was Mitt’s son which led to all kinds of jokes about me the rest of the night. During the campaign, Romney was criticized for sounding too scripted, but he actually has a very clever sense of humor. I used to be unsure, but after hearing his quick wit, I doubt many of his debate puns were planned. He takes America’s challenges so seriously that the public mostly saw his intense side over the last 18 months. He is a businessman and a problem solver – not a performer, like many of this year’s candidates. It is unfortunate that American voters were turned off by his religion and seriousness and did not take time to realize his tremendous potential.

Instead of sitting in the back with his all-star lineup of advisors, he sat up front and talked with me. As he awaited a call from John McCain regarding the running mate position, I asked Mitt if he was nervous. He said that with all of the talent to choose from, he doubted he would be picked, but that was okay, since he looked forward to spending more time with his twelve grandkids. Romney is known for his extreme success as a private equity manager and the huge wealth he amassed while doing so. It is unfortunate that some people associate wealth with arrogance because the Governor is truly a humble and frugal man. Even though he is worth over $250 million, he spent 25 minutes on his BlackBerry looking for a way to save $20 and find the cheapest way to get back to Boston from LAX – simply as a matter of principal.

At the end of the day, when I dropped them off at their hotel, with all of us still unaware if the Governor would be the Vice Presidential nominee, he thanked me for my time and made me promise I would help McCain’s campaign – whether or not he was on the ticket. My business background may relate more to Governor Romney’s than most, but it cemented in my mind that often times what we see on television is not always what we would get.

Winston Churchill once said, “the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” Society has lost sight of what it means to be President of the United States. Governor Romney is but one of the many amazing leaders that have been passed over because of their lack of appeal to the “common man.” If America is going to continue to be the last, best hope of the world, American voters need to vote for smartest, most outstanding leader they can find, not the one who promises to give the most handouts or is most like their coworker or next door neighbor.

Channel Surfing

http://www.youtube.com/v/1nA1MwOE86U&hl=en&fs=1">

Welcome to The Great Red Hope

Why The Great Red Hope? Politics goes in cycles and right now the Democrats have the upper hand in convincing the American people that their policies are best suited to move the U.S. forward. I am a firm believer however that the Republican Party's principals - low taxation, low government involvement/spending, strong national defense, etc. - will, over the long term, provide the United States with the leadership and guidance to remain the democracy that is the envy of many countries around the world.

As a student of Leadership Theory, this blog will focus on how leaders across many fields - politics, corporate america, professional athletics, etc. - affect and shape our lives and the news we read every day.

With 67 days until the 2008 Presidential election, this blog will track developments in the race as well as profile certain individuals who will impact the race or the upcoming Presidential Administration.

And of course with college football season, I won't be able to resist keeping you updated on how well my USC Trojans are doing.

My prayers go out to the families living in the Gulf Coast as we ask for their safe evacutation from Hurricane Gustov.