Jack’s Blog

Sean Hannity is blaming the current stock market woes and economic crisis our (and his) nation’s facing on - Barack Obama - after only nine days of him being President-Elect!  Hasn’t Hannity ever been taught that when you lose, even if your side gets trounced, at the very least, try to maintain some dignity?  Would it be that difficult to give the new guy a chance?  We’re not talking about a middle school football game where his kid threw two “pick-6’s,” the team got beat 14-10 in the championship game and he felt the need to come to the kid’s rescue because everybody was saying his own flesh and blood was a loser.  What you’re disparaging - at a mighty high income level, with an extremely large platform, to an awful lot of people - is our country.  The country all of us inhabit.

Hannity and the rest of his kind wanted to win (naturally), but they didn’t, so now it’s time to whine and cut down the man who soundly beat them.  If they were the leaders, and could recruit others for their administration, the last people they’d select would be those exactly like themselves - because they realize that type can divide and destroy a team, should anyone dare to disagree with them.  

Look, the American people said Obama is the guy we want to lead us - by a fairly substantial margin.  Yet, these “talking heads” continue to use “politics of fear” because they feel it’s their job, as spokesmen for the right wing, to stir up controversy rather than being “team players” as we were all taught growing up.  What’s so sad is that with all the supporters Hannity and others of his ilk have, how much influence they could exert in an effort to UNIFY this great nation of ours, they make the selfish choice instead.  Each one of them makes the conscious decision to violate rule number one of any successful team, organization, company, group - or even country - and that is: WHAT’S RIGHT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN WHO’S RIGHT. 

And we wonder why people outside the United States think our country’s a little (lot) screwed up?  It’s because we have no team concept.  Every one of these pontificators are making more money than 99% of their listeners.  All the preaching they do “for the good of the average, hard working Americans (like Joe the Schmuck) is as disingenous as their claims of fair treatment of each side in the past election.  That means one side ripped a candidate to shreds and then the other side did the same to his opponent, making the election more about whom not to vote for as it was who the best candidate was.

The sorriest part of all of it is that if John McCain had won, we’d have the exact same scenario in reverse.  It’s almost like our nation’s mantra is: “We know that United We Stand, let’s see if we can take the challenge of trying to stand divided too.”  In best selling author Ken Blanchard’s book, High Five!, he makes the following statement that would improve our country’s morale and, I sincerely believe, productivity if we were to adopt it:

“When you focus on the positive, you develop the habit of doing things right.  By concentrating on doing things right, you actually wind up doing fewer things wrong.”

After watching the Democrats and Republicans for the past year or so, the only conclusion I can come to regarding how the party strategists (for my feelings on those creatures, please see blog 6/30/08) think the average, i.e. the kind who decides the election, voter’s mind works is as follows:

Let’s see, the choices are and older, military guy; a young, black guy; and a woman who used to live in the White House.  The older guy is a war hero and is referred to by some as a maverick - but is in his 70’s; the black dude is hip and has kind of a rock star quality about him - but doesn’t have much experience; and the lady is really smart and was close to the decisions a president had to make - but would I be voting for her or her husband?

The strategists came up with plans.  They’re smart.  Why would someone get paid to do a job that’s dependent on winning if they didn’t have a true pulse of the nation?  They know that people make decisions based much more on emotion than on knowledge.  So, their job is to appeal to the voters’ hearts, not their heads.

Hindsight being 20/20, chances are the strategists for the woman underestimated the black man’s popularity and if they had to do it all over again (probably won’t happen - if he wins, she won’t get that chance; if he loses, she will, but not against him), they’d have done things differently from the outset.

So, it became old and white versus young and black.  There were too many voters who fell into other categories besides those, so … let the manuevering for ballots begin.  Obviously, the black man couldn’t select another black man (the country’s come a ways in race relations, but not that far), and it probably wouldn’t be a good idea to pick someone without much political experience, so his choices came down an older white guy with a ton of experience (but certainly no one close to 70 for goodness sakes or that would negate all the negative statements the strategists had planned for the other side) or a woman.  The woman who lost was extremely popular (naturally, with women, but not only with women) and her vast number of supporters needed to be addressed and, subsequently, reeled in or they might go elsewhere (perish the thought - the strategist’s job would perish as well).  So how about her as a running mate?

Whoa, major problems - 1) the two of them made some pretty nasty remarks about each other which the other side would use (and use and use and use …), 2) would she even accept “second place” and 3) how would the two of them (once seen as viper and viperette in their debates) look standing on stage, side-by-side (with their spouses, one of whom used to be The Man in the White House, now a heart beat away from being the First Man of the White House)?  Scratch the woman idea - and, for that matter, any other woman since that would most assuredly lose her “peeps.”

OK, we’ve decided on a distinguished-looking, long-time politician with a great deal of experience - a perfect match.  How can the other side top that duo?

But, the other side has strategists, too.  One of the men being considered as a running mate was someone who could bring in money and deliver a major state - and someone who passed the “likability” test.  He’s a Mormon (so now we’ve thrown religion into the mix - in addition to age, race and gender - to further confuse/solidfy voters’ decisions).  Other potential mates had positives (and negatives - don’t we all) so that, not only was who the pick was going to be a crucial decision, but when to announce it was vital as well because their convention was about to take place and, as with most conventions, the other side was gaining momentum.

First, because the people of this country have said they’ve had it with negative campaigning, how about we run an ad congratulating our opponent (with the caveat that, after that day, all bets were off - and, oh, make sure he smiles when he says that) strategically placed during their convention?  But that wasn’t all. 

Some strategical mind came up with a blockbuster of an idea.  Why don’t we select a woman of our own (even though she hadn’t been mentioned as a potential running mate and the voters were trying to decide on the virtues of all the men who were being discussed)?  Hey, while we’re at it, let’s make sure she’s easy on the eyes, too.  Voila, the trump card.  However, an awkward moment happened on Larry King Live when one of the strategists was asked by the King, “Was she the most deserving for that position of all those in your party?” and the strategist refused to answer, ever after the question was repeatedly asked.  Never mind, the idea was a home run.

What’s most disturbing to me is that this whole campaign (as with the past few) seems much more about posturing and spinning and, the aforementioned negativity, than it does about “What, exactly, do you and your party plan on doing to make our country in general and me, in particular, better off?”  It just feels like an inordinate amount of time is spent by each party trying to win the election and more time is devoted to telling us how much worse off we’ll be if the other side gets in than what’s going to occur if their side won.  What I can’t help thinking of is the violation of Kelly Walker’s line, which is what I believe is being done to the voters: 

“Never let the urgent crowd out the important.”

   Â

Up-to-the-date news about the upcoming election to elect our country’s highest leader!

Women and older people like the female and older than her opponent, Hillary Clinton, while blacks and younger people tend to favor the black and younger, Barack Obama.  I wonder how accurate those stats are?

Meanwhile, the character assasination on Obama by Clinton supporters and on Clinton by Obama supporters (sure, hers have been worse on him than his have been on her but, hey, he’s in the lead) continue.

Meanwhile, John McCain’s backers sit back and laugh … until the Democrats finally pick a candidate (and unite - hah)!  Then watch McClain’s character get toasted.  It’s just not his time yet.

I still believe this is the greatest country in the world, but often, I’m afraid - to paraphrase Stewart Udall:

“We have, I fear, confused power with greatness.”

  Â

The latest news on the presidential campaign trail is the gaffe Barack Obama made regarding “small town, rural America, its bitterness and its resultant clinging to guns and religion because of that bitterness.”  Opponents Clinton and McCain stumbled over each other to be the first to condemn Obama for what he’d said - almost as if he made the statement, “I can’t believe anybody in their right mind was thinking of voting for me; I’ve been kidding about this presidency gig all along.”

He’s being called “elitist” and “out of touch” by Clinton and McCain.  Statements like these break candidates and while I’m far from being an Obama supporter, his speech in Pennsylvania is another example of how elections are run and won in today’s political environment.  Honestly, I can’t find anybody I like or trust enough to be the leader of our once great, and now not-so, country - due to the pettiness and bickering that ultimately decides who lands in office.  I still believe it’s the best country in the world, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t any flaws - and one of them is the way elections are decided. 

I’ve stated in these blogs on numerous occasions (4/22/07 and 7/12/07 among others) that the number one rule of any successful company, organization, group or even country is “What’s right is more important than who’s right” and this basic tenet is violated everyday - more so in the political arena than anywhere else (with the possible exception of California courtrooms).  My point is that both the Clinton and McCain supporters are vehemently stating that Obama’s remarks make him unfit to run this nation.  As Lord Acton said, “The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern.  Every class is unfit to govern.”

Maybe it’s true Obama’s comments should disqualify him from the post- but it doesn’t mean that either of the other two should win!  It simply means that Obama shouldn’t.  It’s only a matter of time before one of the other two makes a similar mistake - unless they say nothing substantial - and then who would want someone like that to be Commander-in-Chief?  Politics has become so “Don’t vote for the other person” oriented, Franklin Adams hit the nail squarely on the noggin when he said,

“Elections are won by men and women chiefly because most people vote against somebody, rather than for somebody.”¼/p>