Jack’s Blog

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell was a guest on Larry King Live last night and one of the questions the “King” asked him was whether he voted for Barack Obama because the Senator was black.

General Powell reminisced about his relationships with then-Senator Obama as well as the one he had with his “good friend of 30 years and fellow Vietnam veteran, John McCain.”  He said he weighed what he felt was each candidate’s philosophies, beliefs, platforms, strategies, plans (or whatever else a candidate has) for the United States and decided which man to support.

While he mentioned he had hoped race didn’t play a factor in his decision, there were a couple of things - one he said, and the other he didn’t - that made me skeptical.  I don’t pretend to be a voice specialist or an expert in body language, but I did detect a distinct hesitation in his voice (albeit brief) when he said race didn’t play a part.  Plus, later in the interview, he said that, on the night of the election, when he finally heard television reporters declare that Barack Obama was, in fact, going to be the country’s next president, he cried. Not that he shouldn’t have cried; that’s exactly what he, and the millions of African-Americans of his era, would be expected to do.  Yet, if his emotions were that strong, then quite possibly, race may have been more prominently on his mind than he’d realized at the time.

That interview reminded me of a story my late mentor, John Savage, used to tell when he said that people accused him of voting for John Kennedy because JFK was Catholic.  Savage always said:

“I did not vote for Kennedy because HE WAS CATHOLIC.  I voted for him because I’M Catholic.”  

This country is in such bad shape now that, unless a newly elected president got up and stuttered and stammered through his speech, it would have to brighten the mood of the people.  The speech is always interesting, but for most Americans, present blogger included, what is usually of greater benefit is listening to the “experts” afterward.

Naturally, partisanship must be factored in, whether it be in the polls that follow or the guests who do.  The polls after a president’s speech are skewed, so we are told, along his party’s line because the only people who are polled are those who actually listen to the speech and, of those who listen, the majority are from the same party as the speaker.  So, it’s no surprise that the “those who approve” category was in the upper 60’s to mid 70’s (in terms of percent).

After hearing those results, it was time to listen to the other “pols” and representatives (whether they be talk radio or television hosts, columnists or others with a predetermined agenda - for either side).  The Obama supporters were giddy, listening to their summation of the speech while the anti-Obama’s will acknowledge the fact that the president is a good speaker (mainly because if they didn’t, no one would ever take them seriously again), but then got into the “pork” and the bigger government and other items of note they picked out which they claimed had been tried and failed in previous administrations.

The one person, of all those “interpreters,” for lack of a better term, I listened to following the speech (and that number was probably between 15-20) who showed the greatest amount of balanced opinion was none other than the president’s biggest (former) rival, John McCain.

I don’t pretend to be able to read minds, especially not one as savvy as Senator McCain’s - with all the experience he’s had and all the adversity he’s gone through (how’s that for an understatement), but one possible reason for his evenhandedness might be that he is the one person in the nation listening tonight who could have had the thought running through his mind, “There, but for the grace of a number of voters, go I.“  This thought process may have influenced his evaluation of what was said, keeping in mind that if the speaker actually had been him, he’d have hoped for an objective breakdown of the points he’d have covered. 

I saw Senator McCain on Larry King, during an interview in which The King asked him about most of the critical topics that were mentioned.  The Senator listened, as Stephen Covey advises, with the intent of understanding and replying to the question (as opposed to circumventing it to throw in a pointed criticism or an idea of his he thought would sound better to the American public), and on many issues he agreed with the president.  On others he agreed in principle but not in the actual practice (e.g. how Guantanamo Bay Naval Base was shut down) and on still others, he voiced his disagreement, but in a civil, logical and response.  That, among other traits, is what separates him from the over-the-top commentators and individuals with private agendas, wise as they may be, like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Karl Rove, Nancy Pelosi and Jesse Jackson (undoubtedly the first time those five names were mentioned in the same sentence).

Regarding Bernard Baruch’s line, I don’t think President Obama has to worry, but I think Senator McCain showed he doesn’t either.  That line was:

“A political leader must keep looking over his shoulder all the time to see if the people are still there.  If they aren’t still there, he’s no longer a political leader.”

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.”

This presidential election was a breakthrough moment for the United States and not only because it marked a first-ever victory for a black candidate.  What was of greater significance is that Barack Obama didn’t win because he won the black vote, nor did he win because he overcame the race issue.  One thing overlooked until McCain’s concession speech and Obama’s acceptance speech was these were two men of extremely high character. 

The remarkable aspect of this election is there were so many other additional factors that led to Obama’s victory.  For one, age was more of a factor than race (according to all the polls taken on each subject).  Issues of even more impact was the general atmosphere hanging over the U.S.  An unpopular war that his opponent was strongly in favor of, an economic crisis that crippled a large percentage of the country (occurring with a Republican president in office), and the overall national distate for that president who represented the same party as his opponent and from whom John McCain couldn’t distance himself far enough, fast enough.  Obama’s “rock star” quality (especially with America’s youth) and his brilliant eloquence weighed more heavily than race also.  And the fact Obama outspent McCain 4:1 didn’t hurt his cause either.

With the new style of campaigning, the zillions of (overzealous) volunteers, the internet - with all its websites (allegedly) keeping the parties and the candidates honest, the one statement Obama will not be able to use is the one John F. Kennedy came up with following his victory in the 1960 presidential election:

“When we got into office, the thing that surprised me most was to find out that things were just as bad as we’d been saying they were.”

Seldom does a politician get accused of brevity (maybe that’s why people have mentioned I’d be a good candidate for office).  But I just recently came across a quotation attributed to a man who many feel was the “consummate politician,” although certainly a controversial one.  That man is former President Lyndon B. Johnson.

When faced with the statement that a president simply needs to do what is right, LBJ countered briefly and perfectly: 

“A president’s hardest task is not to do what is right, but to know what is right.”  Â

Negative politics are deplorable.  So say the majority of people in polls taken on the subject.  Yet, every time we hear the question posed to political strategists on TV talk shows, “Why, when so many people are opposed to negative politics, do campaigns continue to use it,” the answer is always the same. 

Because it works.

Call me naive, but I do believe these presidential candidates have used less negative campaigning themselves than in the past, but their henchmen or henchwomen are holding up their own extremely well.  The vice presidential candidates are pitching in at nearly every opportunity they get, as are the commercials run by interest groups which don’t need to end with a “I’m Barack Obama/John McCain and I approved this message.”  Rather, it’s “sponsored by the Americans for cleaner Midwestern rural highways” or some such group.

The true negative politicing goes to the media, print, radio, television, whatever who blast off and say some of the most outrageous statements, but when challenged about a policy or statement made by their favorite candidate change the subject quicker than a Chris Paul crossover (had to get a sports analogy in there).  One of the truest lines I’ve ever heard when it comes to politics and unfairness is by Max Lerner, whose quote needs to be updated to:

“A politician wouldn’t dream of being allowed to call a columnist (or talk radio or TV host) the things a columnist (or talk radio or TV host) is allowed to call a politician.”Â

Talk about being in the minority.  Every panelist, evaluating the debate, unanimously agreed on one thing: “Please, no more debates!”  I, as a voter (semi-informed, I admit), thought the debates and the ideas of such interaction does more to educate the average American (of which I consider myself to be a member) than all the staged, packed, partisan crowds who cheer wildly on every word their candidate utters, especially the derogatory slurs and flat out negative oratory directed at his or her opponent - what’s referred to in sports as “trash-talking.”  These cute, little ditty’s become that night’s (and several following) “sound bites,” giving us the reason not to vote for them, but to not vote for their opponent.  As a voter, I want to know whom I should want in office and why I should want them in there.  Voting to keep someone out may come back to haunt all of us, especially when we see who got in because of our “non-vote.” The junk mail flyers and automated phone calls don’t do much to sway me, either.

Anytime a moderated, face-to-face discussion occurs, the little white lies and innuendos had better be concise because your opponent is sitting (or standing) near you and has an opportunity to respond.  In addition, with today’s computer whizzes, any such attempt will be exposed by the “truth” websites.

Maybe because my career has been mainly in the arena of me against you, us against them, i.e. keeping score, being held accountable, playing by a set of rules, gives me greater insight into what the candidates believe in a debate format than hearing any of them speaking before a group of like-minded supporters, preaching to them about everything they believe in anyway.  This last debate, a sit down, face-to-face encounter, moderated (I thought) brilliantly by Bob Scheiffer, showed how bright each candidate was, how well-prepared their coaches’ game plans were and how knowledgeable each was on the issues and - when asked, point blank, exactly what he’d do, usually gave substantial answers.

What the nation needs to hear more of is which issues the candidates have disagreed on, e.g. their voting record on a certain item, and why.  What is their policy on that topic, why did they vote that way, and has their feeling changed?  The results of something of this nature is the country becomes aware of what the candidates believe and we get to hear it while they’re on the “hot seat,” as opposed to the rhetoric spewed before each’s fan base -with an occasional change of message, depending on which part of the country the rally is held.

Town hall meetings are another good venue for Americans to learn about the candidates, as long as the attendees are carefully screened so as to eliminate the “lunacy” element, which is gaining members daily.  Undoubtedly, there are other ways creative thinkers can come up with that give the voters a fair look at those trying to represent them.  Certainly, television has its flaws.  There are times when the “person who looked better on television” (Kennedy vs. Nixon) won the election (mainly due to that reason); television also favors those who are more “comfortable” in front of a camera (Reagan).

Possibly, a debate could be staged without the candidates being shown (like on radio, but today’s voters want to sit in a comfortable chair and listen).  With all the technological advances that have been made, it wouldn’t be out of the realm of thinking to come up with a non-partisan video that could be shown while the discussion went on (kind of like the waves craching on a beach when you’re attempting to relax, to use as an absurd example).

One thing I could do without is the polls that go on during as well as after the debate.  Anyone knows that polls will be skewed depending upon who’s being polled.  It reminded me of a line out of the old movie Joe, starring Peter Boyle, who’s portrayed as possibly the world’s most greatest bigot.  His character is sitting at the bar complaining about the state of the country when he makes the statement, “42% of all liberals are queer.  That’s a fact.  The (George) Wallace people took a poll.” 

I mean, is anybody surprised when someone from the Democratic headquarters is asked who won the debate moments afterwards and they’re all smiles, claiming an overwhelming victory for Obama, only to be immediately followed by someone at GOP headquarters who says McCain ruled the night?  I sit in amazement that these two people watched the same debate I did.

The main reason for my interest in more head-on politics comes from a line from Lee Iaccoca (one of the original bailout recipients), but, nonetheless, a person who made a significant positive impact in the country:

“The road forward starts with a conversation.”

 Â

Warning: This blog may sound like “second verse, same as the first” (or fifteenth verse, same as the fourteenth).

The fundamental problem with politics is NOT with the candidates (especially at the Presidential level).

The fundamental problem is with the strategists - whose only goal is TO WIN!  It’s not their fault.  It’s their job!  Example (and keep in mind that this example is not from Republican and Democratic strategists, just a Republican and a Democrat - however, they are reactions of two extremely bright and knowledgeable people who are closely following the debate and the campaigns- in chronological order of when they were interviewed (so as to eliminate accusations of slanting my commentary). 

First, Bill Bennett (Republican) said McCain’s theme was “Obama doesn’t understand,” while Obama’s was, “You’re right, John,” which, he said, showed Obama is intellectually generous, while McCain is a sheriff.  Bennett’s conclusion was that in these times, we need a sheriff.  Next up was Paul Begala (Democrat) who, not surprisingly, explained why he thought Obama did better in the debate.

Strategists’ jobs (come to think of it, not that unlike Bennett’s and Begala’s) are 1) when they hear a good idea come from the opposition, either figure out a way to take credit for it, i.e. that it was, in fact, their candidate who came up with it (or at least, their party did), or find some way to discredit it, or some area where they can punch a hole in it (even though, privately, they agree with 99.9999% of it) and 2) to listen to the opponent, not with (Stephen Covey’s 5th of his 7 Habits of Highly Effective People suggests) the intent to seek to understand, but rather they hover and pounce on any mistake, any (even the most minor) of slip-ups and build a case to paint the opponent as wrong, naive, uninformed, foolish, or, if possible, the ultimate trump card - as someone who is completely incapable of holding such a prestigious and powerful position and, hence, would be a danger to the people - if elected.

Another example of conflicting post-debate comments: Nicole Wallace (Senior Advisor to John McCain) smiled throughout the entire interview, claiming a resounding McCain victory.  Interviewed immediately after Wallace was Joe Biden (no ID necessary), who evaluated the debate from a diametrically opposed viewpoint. 

Same debate, very intelligent people.  How could their opinions differ so widely?  The quote from the blog of just a couple days ago (9/25) fits in nicely, but when it comes to the overall good of the American people, the one by former President Dwight D. Eisenhower (because of its content, not necessarily his party affiliation) might hit the mark even better:

“It’s far more important to be able to hit the target than it is to haggle over who makes the weapon or pulls the trigger.”   Â

I’ve had eight back surgeries - all major.  Of course, I once heard minor surgery is what it’s called when it’s done to someone else; it’s major when they cut you.  For those fortunate of you who’ve never experienced surgery, take my word for it, the last statement’s true.

Since I’ve been confined to bed since I got back from the Emergency Room at 4:00 am on Tuesday morning, I’ve done nothing but sleep, watch CNN and read a  book entitled Minestrone for the Mobster’s Soul (co-written, believe it or not, by an assistant coach for the Chicago Bulls, an 30+ year basketball coaching lifer - 15 at Gordon Tech High School in Chicago, a brief stay in college and the last 20 years in the NBA - named Bob Ociepka - pen name Bobby Madura, and his cousin, Bruno).  Nothing, that is, other than writhe in pain every minute I’m awake - which could account for the tone of this blog.  Bear with me if you disagree.

The sleeping part is great, until the waking up part happens.  The book is so enjoyable because, while it’s certainly not a book for everybody (I defy anybody to name one that is, including, unfortunately, The Holy Bible), it’s as real a book as I’ve ever read (and I’m considered a rather voracious reader).  This blog’s not about that book however (although I anticipate writing one once I finish it).

What may have exacerbated my condition was the news that was reported all within a period, it seemed, of a couple hours: President Bush’s address on the economy (or what’s left of it), Senator McCain’s statement on suspending his campaign and his suggestion to postpone Friday’s debate and Senator Obama’s answer to Senator McCain that, while the economic crisis certainly is a monstrous problen, a president must be able to deal with more than one crisis at a time, i.e. the campaign and the debate must go on.

First, President Bush’s address.  It sounded sincere and who am I to doubt the President’s sincerity?  I just have one question: Where the hell has this guy been?  How in the world does someone who has as much responsibility as he does for the American citizens, let the country we’ve entrusted to him get into such bad shape to begin with?  I can’t believe nobody in his advisory council saw any of this financial collapse coming?  When I lost faith in the President (and I have to admit, I voted for him) was the day, quite a while back, he was questioned about gas costing over $4/gallon.  His response was, “It is?  I did not know that.”  Is that how you run up a nine trillion dollar deficit?  In math terms, that’s $9,000,000,000,000.  That ought to bother even people making a whole lotta money. 

When Dick Cheney, his vice-presidential choice, was discovered to have the connections he did with Halliburton, it was the being of the end of trusting the current administration.  To someone who’s as ignorant of the business world as I am, what’s going on now and what happened with Halliburton stinks of one common human flaw: greed.  How anyone can screw over so many people for personal financial gains, independent of how much they end up cashing in on (7, 8 or even 9 figures) just shocks me - and I’m definitely no babe in the woods when it comes to dishonestly.  (After all, I did recruit basketball players in the SEC from 1980-87.)  When trust goes, there’s nothing substantial left.

These people (the CEO’s who cash in and take off) should be subjected to Bobby O’s form of justice - but they ought to be made to read the section on it in Minestrone first - so they know what’s coming, just not when.

As far as Senators McCain and Obama, there is no question in my mind that each is a true public servant.  Both want what’s best for the American people.  It’s the small, but oh-so-powerful nameless and faceless minority behind them, running their campaigns, so hell-bent on winning, that their every move is toward political, as opposed to human, needs.  I don’t know why (or maybe I do), but every time I see (and hear) Karl Rove, I think of this type of person - someone who’s the absolute best at smearing opponents, yet when asked about a weakness of someone he supports, diverts the query and returns to smearing.  He should be the first person to read Bobby’s book.

I tell my classes every year the story of Copernicus, the person who told everybody that the world, in fact, did not revolve around us, that we were part of something bigger - and that even though he was right, his reward was … getting killed.  (Maybe that’s where honesty got a bad rap).  Yet, his main message lives on - and it would do all political candidates (and their committee members and supporters - which means, pretty much, everyone), to take heed:

“It’s not about us.  We’re part of something bigger.” ¼/p>

Let’s start with what the voters would like to hear from a candidate for public office: his or her views and stance on issues - those things that matter, that tell us how the world will be made better for us and, I know in my own case (having recently turned 60), even more so, for our children.

If you, as a candidate, take a stand, i.e. explain your position on a topic, you are assured to lose votes.  Take, for example, gun control.  You come out and say, “I am in favor of gun control.”  Does this ensure you the votes of people who are also in favor of gun control?  Possibly.  Does it ensure you’ll lose the vote of those opposing gun control?  Definitely!

So what has this strategy accomplished?  Certain votes for your opponent (who hasn’t said a word yet on the issue - and don’t expect one any time soon).  Can you blame him or her?  Without uttering a sound, (s)he has gained votes - even if (s)he may feel more strongly (in the identical direction) than you do!

Now you decide to take a stand on pro-life vs. pro-choice.  Same results.  The voters who feel the same way you do on the pro-life/pro-choice debate, but who oppose your stance on gun control, won’t vote for you because they’ve already made up their minds to vote for your opponent once they heard your feelings on the gun control issue.  Those who agreed with your stance on gun control, and were leaning to voting for you, now have been turned off because they’re on the opposite side of the abortion platform.  Result: you just lost more votes.  And so it goes with every firm commitment you take on each additional issue.

In today’s world, if you upset someone, you lose their vote and can never regain it - unless your opponent is foolish enough to specifically explain his or her views.  Keep in mind, however, his or her strategists are giving advice to “keep your mouth shut - the person we’re running against is single-handedly winning this election for us.”

On the flip side, wouldn’t it seem wiser to expose how your opponent feels on the issues - based on some (often misleading) statistics or actions in his or her past (which may or may not be relevant any more).  Let people know how your opponent feels, so you can strike fear in their hearts and minds.  Yet what do these personal attacks really mean?  That the candidate has flaws.  Do those flaws dictate how this candidate will govern?  No, but if they, indeed, do strike fear in the voters and cause them to think, “Do we really want a person like this governing us?” they’d succeeded in their mission.

It’s dirty, it’s underhanded, it’s wrong, but … it’s reality.   When I first started coaching, I had a player who wasn’t playing complain to me about his lack of PT.  He explained how bad the kid who was ahead of him was. My response at that time (as it would be now) was:

“Just because someone else is doing poorly doesn’t mean you’re doing well.”

All of this sounds so demoralizing and I admit, when it comes to political campaigns, I have absolutely no confidence in our current system.  We need reform (now, there’s an idea for a campaign slogan - just make sure you’re not too specific on exactly what that reform is going to be) and we need it real fast.  While I don’t have a solution, I sincerely believe it’s time for people who feel like I do to get together and kick around some thoughts because when people who feel strongly about a problem decide to solve it, remarkable results occur.  Any takers?