GOP Howls to the Moon, Obama keeps on Truckin...

So after another Obama week, the GOP is starting to find its groove, so it seems. They are hoping for a 1993 redux. Will the Congress raise taxes, and pass stimulus spending over the entire Republican caucus? Will the Republicans use this as a club to beat the Democrats down in a sweeping back to power in 2010? It's possible. But let's have a quick reality check here:

Yes, the House of Representatives passed an $819 Billion stimulus package. Yes, all 178 Republican Congressmen and Women voted against it (along with 10 Democrats). But is this all just sound and fury, signifying nothing?

For the GOP Faithful--"We're BACK"

• GOP leadership did score a victory in its solidarity. Certainly, a break from the party in any way would have been a HUGE disappointment to GOP House leadership, after all of their bluster about what a stinking turd of a piece of legislation they think this is. And now Rush Limbaugh gets to be in the headlines as the self-fancied "leader of Conservative Dogma out of the wilderness, and return to prominence" (Which is a good thing, because I was worried he might have to console himself through other means). And they have had a chance to scream to the masses that their tax cut proposals are the only acceptable alternative.

For the Democratic Faithful, here's some reasons to stay calm...

• First, this is only the initial vote, pre-Senate Reconciliation. There still seems to be some thought in the Democratic circles that there are a number of willing Republicans to come out of the woodwork, once all is said and done, and a vote on the REAL bill comes up.
• Second, the Senate will not be able to filibuster this. Olympia Snowe, Judd Gregg, Arlen Specter, George Voinovich and others are too vulnerable in 2010 (in Voinovich's case, he isn't running, but is looking for help for hard-hit Ohioans) to be saddled with the "41st vote" label, against a filibuster cloture. Two Republicans will cave. That's all that needs to happen.
• Third, it may be moot. Judd Gregg is being wooed by the Obama team for the Secretary of Commerce position. In a transparent, but VERY shrewd move, Obama could take care of a few issues at once. Fill a Cabinet position, look bi-partisan, and get a 60th Democratic Senator into Gregg's seat in New Hampshire. We'll see how it plays out...
• Fourth, the sitting Republicans in the House are already the most conservative bunch ever. Why? Because anyone not from a deep red area has already been bounced out of the house during 2006 and 2008. All that remains is the Hard Right, Lower taxes or die, Laffer-only, Reaganite, who wouldn't vote for an Obama plan if their life depended on it. With no filibuster rules in the House, it may be a better play for Obama to approach the Senate with his efforts.
• Fifth, the ads are already out there. "Do YOU want to vote for the Senator/Congressman who represents the party of RUSH LIMBAUGH!?" The actions of Phil Gingrey this past week were so pathetic, it pains me too much to even repeat them here. But it does say something to the casual political observer, that a SITTING CONGRESSMAN would GROVEL at the feet of the mighty Rush Limbaugh, and beg forgiveness for having deigned to criticize Rush for being, well...Rush.

We are talking about Rush Limbaugh here. The man who hopes Obama (and in translation, the US Economy as a whole) fails. The man who was kicked off ESPN's Sunday football program after TWO SHOWS for making racially insensitive comments about Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb. This is the guy who has railed about morality, while developing a prescription drug habit, and skirting time for forging prescriptions.

Anyway, Limbaugh may play well in Red districts, but the problem is, that is only 46% of the electorate. He is radioactive in the rest of the country, and too many people in those states are voting in 2010 for a sitting US Senator.


In the end, Obama will continue to do what he has proven so adept at--WINNING. He will win this debate and get his bill passed. Oh, while no one was looking, he also got his way on SCHIP, the Geithner nomination, and looks like he will get Holder on board too. For all the hollering from the GOP about this and that, Obama has managed to get just about everything he has wanted thusfar...

Obama--Playing Chess in a World of Checkers

Watching the new Obama Presidency has been a truly fascinating study of personality. For the political junkie, there has been no shortage of important steps being taken here. But what has been so interesting is the way that Obama, the man, has led during this time span. And it is this that is so striking.

I have watched very closely, as the media outlets have howled their disapproval at not being let in to see the farce of a "swearing in" ceremony on January 21. I saw lots of John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer on the weekend talk shows. I watched Rush Limbaugh gesticulate, and the media react, like a flock of sheep.

What I noticed, after all of this, is how silly they all look, next to a mature figure in the White House. Somehow, when George W. Bush was in the Oval Office, it all seemed to make sense. Now that we are seeing a calm, pragmatic, mature figure in charge, all of these shenanigans seem childish and unbecoming of adult behavior. I am reminded of Teddy Roosevelt's favorite line as I watch this...

"Speak softly, carry a big stick"

...and then I apply it to what I have seen this week:

• Republican bluster--has anyone in the Republican party actually suggested that they wanted to work with the Democrats and Obama on the stimulus package without qualifying the remarks with some cheap shot about what they think of the package first? Honestly, telling your adversary, "you're ugly, and I hate you! Now let's work together to resolve our differences" isn't exactly a mature example of attempting to work together, now is it?
• Democratic Ram-rod--at the same time, would it have killed the Democratic party to at least include the Republican minority in the initial negotiations on the stimulus package? Honestly, I get the idea that Majority Rulz! in the House. But this economy is on the precipice, if not already falling, over the cliff. This is NOT the time to try to score points with the voting electorate. Grow up, already.
• Rod Blagojevich--can someone just tell him, to his face, on one of these shows, to put a sock in it already? How is this guy a twice-elected official? To paraphrase Bob Barker, "[He] shouldn't be running the snack bar at the local golf course."
• Media outlets--I give a number of these guys terrible marks for their behavior. Rush Limbaugh, rooting for Obama to fail in his attempts to help the American economy. Sean Hannity, for inviting him on Fox News to elaborate. Chris Matthews, for endlessly debating petty issues on his show, like stimulus plan spending on things like The Mall lawn care, or Planned Parenthood funding. The White House Press Corps, for getting on Robert Gibbs about Obama's lack of Press at the Tuesday night "re-swearing in". Honestly, how silly can you get?

Talk about a show of childish immaturity, and self-serving behavior. While all of this crap has been going on, two things have happened. One is, the economy has continued to tank. The second is, President Obama has quietly, and quite effectively, moved his agenda forward. No fanfare. No big, self-serving announcements of all he has accomplished so far. Just a continued march towards an agenda he has been promising for about 2 years now. How has he done this? By speaking softly, and carrying a big stick:

• Emmanuel emissary--Using Rahm Emmanuel, and inviting Republicans to meet with him on Stimulus ideas, has been a more effective method of consensus than Nancy Pelosi-style humble pie. In the end, I expect we will see more of the Republican ideas baked into the stimulus, because we need to get something passed, and because this is still a party with some good ideas in regards to taxes and spending. We shall see if Republican leadership will take a bill that only has 30% of what they want in it. But it's a better effort than Bush ever made.
• Environmental policy rollbacks--he said he'd allow California emissions standards to be set on a state basis, and he enacted just what he said he would. And with little fanfare. It won't make Carl Levin happy, but it might be the first step back in helping America lead the world on environmental policy. It was nice to see that Obama can listen to alternative points of view, but still make effective decisions. I suppose John McCain will have to shut up, now that "Obama has taken a stance that wasn't popular with some aspects of his own party..." (Looking back, is there even a doubt as to why Obama beat him so badly in the election?)
• Interview on al-arabya television--this looks strange on its surface, and even insulting to American news outlets. On the other hand, this sends a wonderful message to the Islamic world, and Arabia in particular. This President wants to work with you. And he has a message for you. "Judge your leaders by what they can build, not what they can tear down". Now why haven't we heard that argument made before now? Pretty smart...

These past two weeks have been a study in leadership style. A study of behavior. I was concerned about Obama's ability to adapt to the ways of Washington, and learn from the mistakes of his predecessors. But if this is how he handles his first two weeks on the job, I guess I have little to fear. He has already shown himself to be more skilled at this than I had thought. Perhaps he isn't just the best checkers player in a town of checkers players. Perhaps he is the only man playing chess in a city of checkers players?

Obama Week 1 Recap--Action Packed

It's been quite a week politically! The inauguration of President Barack Obama on Tuesday was certainly historic. It is this event that will live on through the upcoming years and decades as a defining moment in our history.

But since that day, Obama has wasted little time getting to work on the issues that face America. In just this week, he has sent a clear message to Washington, and to America, that he will make decisions and take action.

1. Rejection of Torture as a tactic--President Obama made it clear immediately, that he will not accept the premise of allowing Intelligence agencies to use extreme measures on detainees. It's about time. Despite what we see on the show "24", in fact, there has been much evidence to the fact that the intelligence gained through torture has been useless, misleading and inaccurate. And the cost of our image around the world for such useless information just made the whole argument seem crazy, and mis-informed. Obama's decision here was a return to sanity. Thank you.

2. Announcement of the closing of Guantanamo Bay Facility--Once again, the red herring of an issue that some have made of this decision is pathetic. To argue that we don't have detention facilities such as Supermax in Colorado, or other options of what to do with 250 detainees is simply disingenuous. That the ONLY way to deal with these people is to keep open a gulag that the world uses as a symbol of American aggression is an idea whose time has come and gone. Our enemies use this facility as evidence that America is deserving of their hatred. It is time to be done with such things. It is good to see this issue being addressed immediately. I am only sorry that Obama isn't pushing to close this facility in a quicker timeframe.

3. Meeting with Military leaders, asking for plans to withdraw from Iraq--There were rumblings by some that, "once in office, Obama wouldn't push for a withdrawal in Iraq". It is nice to see that he has taken decisive action--asking military leaders for a detailed plan to carefully withdraw from Iraq. It is time to focus on finding the person responsible for leading al Qaeda--the spiritual leader of our advisary--Osama bin Laden. Remember him? No one else seems to. Time to get back to a policy where we go after those who actually attacked us.

4. Possibly reversing course on off-shore drilling--It is good to see that, while Obama can be decisive, that he understands the game in relationship to energy. WE NEED to get off the oil standard. As long as we continue to use excuses to drill more, we will be forever at the mercy of the countries who have the most oil--Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, Venezuela, Nigeria. Why would we, as a nation, subject ourselves to such a position? The sooner we free ourselves of this senseless policy, the better we will be. Saying no to off-shore drilling is the first step. A sensible, credible energy policy is step 2.

5. Discussion of Stimulus package with Dems and GOP...--It is a good sign that President Obama wants input from the minority party, and is willing to give credence to good ideas. This is what a President should do, and it is something that was not done during the previous administration.

6. ..."I won"--But Obama did something bold in inviting the GOP to the table. He made it clear to them that he won the election. That means that his invitations to the White House to discuss ideas is not tantamount to allowing the GOP leadership to have its way on votes. And Republicans have to know that going back to their constituencies with a message "I blocked the stimulus package of tax cuts, and our last effort to avoid a second Great Depression" is not going to be met with resounding cheers. Still, it was important for Obama to send a message to Congressional DEMOCRATS as well, that they are a majority party, and it's time they started acting like it.

7. Reversing the ban on Abortion funding--This was not unexpected, but has given the Pro-Life movement its new "raison d'etre". There have already been protests at the steps of the Supreme Court, with crowds in the tens of thousands. There is no doubt that this is an issue that will gain attention over the upcoming months. Let's see how this develops (I will look at ways to blog this topic as well).

Quite a weeek. And there's more to come.

Already, the Congress has been aggressively pushing the Obama initiatives, with a move to get SCHIP passed (The House has already voted and passed a bill), Stem Cell Research Funding, and a Stimulus Bill pushing $1 Trillion. All to be voted on before Valentines Day. The Senate has been confirming Cabinet Appointees (Despite John Cornyn's best efforts to slow things down. note to John: Great job delaying Clinton's appointment! Through your efforts, she only won passage 94-2! Great job! Way to go on the Geithner delay, too! Through Senate Republican efforts, Geithner only passed out of Committee by an 18-5 vote! Great job. You only lost by a mile, not in a total landslide! Glad you could waste everyone's time in the process, though!).

The wheels of change in Washington move slowly. Even with a one-party majority, changes don't move as quickly as some would like. But to look back at this week, and all that has happened for President Obama, it is somewhat breath taking what he has managed to accomplish. Here's hoping that this change can continue, and that such bold measures can start to turn the economic ship around over the upcoming weeks and months.

Right Wing Behavior--Perhaps its time to try something different?

It is truly a challenging time to be a Republican. For the party faithful, it has been painful to watch as John McCain got beaten handily by Barack Obama. The fiscal dogma of lower taxes, less regulation and economic prosperity may still hold value, but has been difficult to defend in light of recent economic events. Party leadership has been unable to present a clear vision of what a return to the majority could even look like. More importantly, there really IS no party leadership at this point. There is no message.

And things are starting to unhinge. As Republicans, and more generally, Conservatives, watch Barack Obama take over the role of President, with a largely supportive Congress, and a hopeful populance, The Right has been flailing around, looking for a winning position on ANY issue. Take specific note of the following:

• Hard Line Opposition--Rush Limbaugh has been playing the role of hard line opposition, saying "I hope he fails" to Barack Obama's fiscal and social agenda. While this may rally the Conservative die-hards, it is seen as rooting against America by most, left right and center.
• Righteous Indignation--John Boehner tried to use righteous indigence in his objection to the proposed Economic stimulus package. But he has no credibility, as no one believes a guy who had significant influence in driving America into a $10 Trillion debt position over the past 8 years, can NOW be counted on to hold the line on spending.
• Constructive Feedback--Paul Ryan (who is quickly becoming a party leader, and bright spot in the party) has expressed his concerns about the stimulus package, but has taken a position of pitching his ideas to Obama, in hopes of getting a sympathetic audience. He has made some noise about being able to do better than what the Dems have proposed. But in all, he has tried to work with Obama on ideas that he and his party care about.
• Tactical Obstruction--John Cornyn has been trying to act as chief obstructionist on Cabinet Hearings. Does anyone understand why he acted so forcefully to delay, for one day, a confirmation vote on Hillary Clinton? In the end, it passed 94-2. Good job, John! Way to accomplish nothing, and slow down the process in the meantime. Holding up the Eric Holder vote will prove to be equally dubious (considering the fact that Holder will probably get upwards of 75 votes). And yet Cornyn is doing his best to delay the process. Why?
• Name Calling--Ken Blackwell has made it a point to try to use the tried and true Republican strategy of poking a stick in the eye of the Democratic Party, and Obama in particular, in hopes of taking over party leadership responsibilities. Like Presidential Primaries, candidates must go RIGHT in the primaries to win. Unfortunately, in an RNC election, that leads to the most strident of Conservatives leading the party. At this moment in time, such a move could prove to be harmful to a party lacking in direction, credible leadership, and power.
• Trying to Stay Relevant--Sarah Palin has continued to show up in news cycles on occasion, but more and more as a sideshow than anything. Her interviews with the Today Show, or the efforts to put out documentaries on her struggles with the Media, or even recent complaints that the media is going after her family, have all had two things in common: a lack of real substance to the policy debate, and an attack on someone or some entity for how they portray HER or her family.

What I think we may be seeing here is the passing of the torch of some of the establishment Conservative and GOP voices, as the long time leaders are suddenly in a position they haven't been in for years--out of power. This is a desperate attempt by some to stay relevant in the absence of any real influence over the public governance debate. And desperate people react in desperate ways.

In the end, though, the GOP will remain relevant to the discussion in America, simply because 58 million Americans voted for their party in one of the worst political environments in the history of the party. The country may not be as center-right as Newt Gingrich would like you to believe, but it has not become hard left overnight either. Political cycles ebb and flow, and Conservative principles will come into vogue if Obama's policies don't generate the kind of change in America that people in the middle of the spectrum had hoped for.

It may take the kind of leadership someone like Congressman Paul Ryan can provide--with new enthusiasm for Conservative principles, and few ties to the old Republican Leadership. It certainly seems that the other acts of Republican and Conservative Leadership have been desperate, flailing, and transparently craven. Perhaps its time to try something different.

Inauguration was great...time to get to work!

I admit it. I played hooky from work (well sorta. I did stay in touch with work obligations through the blackberry, and even found time for a couple of phone calls...). I attended an "Obama Inauguration Party", despite the fact that I am NOWHERE NEAR Washington DC.

I thought there were a few comical moments:

• Dick Cheney looking like Old Man Potter in "It's a Wonderful Life", being wheeled around during the swearing-in ceremony (honestly, was there anything funnier to watch than THAT!?)

• Chief Justice John Roberts, failing to faithfully administer the actual oath of office to Barack Obama. This leads me to wonder whether he got the nomination from Bush based upon his skill in delivering a basic message in public.



• The gargantuan crowd, serenading George W. Bush's final helicopter flight from the White House with chants of "NA na Na Na, Na na NA NA, Hey, hey, hey, GOOD BYE!"

But in the end, the day symbolized a turning of the page. The end of an era. Finally, a rational approach to the issues that face us. And the nice thing about it all is that we finally have a President who really understands the gravity of the situation.

Obama's speech discussed two important things: Personal Responsibility, and Worldwide Cooperation. In both of these arenas, he has a TON of work to do, and not much time to start achieving success.

So I say this: Enjoy the day, and enjoy the night. By tomorrow, it is already "game on", and time to start working on the hard part of politics--DELIVERING on Promises.

By 2010, President Obama will have to deliver on the following:

1. Stem Cell Research funding


2. Government Stimulus Package Administering


3. Honest negotiations of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict


4. Significant withdrawal of troops in Iraq


5. The development of an AGGRESSIVE Energy Independence policy


6. Closing of Guantanamo


7. The review of possible prosecution of the Bush/Cheney Torture activities


8. The review of health care proposals


9. The restoration of the American financial System


10. The restoration of hope in America

Lots to get done. The clock is ticking. "Get 'er done", Mr. President.

Mr. Obama--The Eyes of the World are upon You

"Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world..." (Grateful Dead)

As the eyes of the world descend upon Washington, and specifically, upon the next President, America, and indeed, the world looks to one man, Barack Obama, for hope and inspiration. And it's been a long time coming.

It's funny, though. Before Obama's announcement, (almost two years ago now) to run for President, I wasn't even aware that something was missing in America. But it was. As I watched Obama kick off his campaign for President on that cold day in Springfield, Illinois, in 2007, I knew I liked what I saw, but I couldn't really understand what it was I liked. Then talking to a colleague that next week, we started to talk about the upcoming election. I mentioned that I saw this guy, Barack Obama give a speech, announcing his campaign, and I heard myself say what I was feeling, even before I understood it myself. I told my co-worker, "I like this guy. He inspires me. And I am ready to be inspired..."

I thought about that for a while, driving home. And for the next two years, through all the Primaries, the inconsistent debate showings, the Jeremiah Wright issues, the tough campaign with John McCain and Sarah Palin, I watched an inspirational figure become better, not worse. I saw him get taller, not smaller. I saw a man who could take difficult situations, and show the country how a real leader handled adversity, and how he himself learned, and got better. Indeed, all of America watched this man become the leader that we all hoped we saw, that cold winter day in 2007.

So here we are, on the eve of the Presidential Inauguration, and this man has become not only our next leader, but the leader we have put our faith and trust in, to make the decisions and deliver the messages, to help this country be better than it has been these past number of years.

America can be a land that leads the world again--in business, in humanitarian efforts, and in spirit. We are ready. We have been ready. But we have needed a leader to help us see this. Someone who is confident, and can deliver the message we need to hear, in a way that inspires us to do more.

I expect President Obama to wear many hats--Obama the cheerleader, Obama the Reassurer, Obama the Diplomat, Obama the Inspirer of Men (and Women!). For in the end, fiscal policy can make a difference, and governmental leaders can enact policies that point us to the right path. But this country is still a nation of 300 million individuals, striving to do better than they did yesterday, and hoping for a chance to be successful. In many ways, our leadership's main role is to tap into the hope and inspiration that helps us to believe in ourselves, that we can do better. That we can be better. And it is this, more than stimulus packages, and bailouts, and filibusters, and bullets and bombs, that will allow us to be a better country tomorrow than we are today.

President Obama, the eyes of America, and indeed the world, are upon YOU tomorrow. But thanks to you, I am ready to do better tomorrow than I did today. Good luck to you, but more importantly, Thank you for stepping up to the challenge, to help us all make America a better place. Time to get started.

The GOP is asking "What do we do NOW?"

A Democratic President with tremendous popularity and support from the US population? A shrinking base of support? A perceived rejection of your core economic beliefs? Retiring Senators? What's a party to do? Republican leadership has got holes in the bucket that are leaking everywhere. So what do you do to stop the bleeding?

1. New Leadership--John Boehner seems to think that he has credibility when he feigns surprise at the size of the stimulus package. That may have been perceived by people as genuine before the economic collapse, and before he led his party to 6 years of terrible budget choices while in the Majority leadership. Much like the delusional George W. Bush farewell tour, people will only be fooled so many times before they start to tune you out.

If Republicans want to play the loyal opposition role, the existing leadership should take a back seat to new voices. Perhaps Eric Cantor (VA), Paul Ryan (WI), or Adam Putnam (FL) could take up the mantle, and make a more convincing argument for fiscal responsibility. It is time for some of these guys to get out on the talk shows, and start getting in the mix a little.

On the Senate side, it is a little tougher. After all, how many new Republicans have we seen in the past 4-6 years? Only Bob Corker (TN), Roger Wicker (MS), Jim Risch (ID), John Barrasso (WY) and Mike Johanns (NE) as far as I can tell. All heavily Red states, and all replacing Republican Senators. With a caucus of only 41, and just about all of them responsible for Republican bills that have led to out of control spending, Iraq votes, etc., it is hard to NOW come out as the party of fiscal conservatism. Therefore, the GOP should start looking to point #2.

2. Find better candidates--Even with the unpopularity of George W. Bush, it is still amazing that only five new Republican could be elected to the Senate in the past two election cycles, and the losses in the House are so staggering. With FOUR Republican Senators (and counting!) retiring, David Vitter, Judd Gregg, and Richard Burr facing tough elections, 2010 could be a third blood bath for the GOP faithful. Why is this happening? Because Republicans still haven't looked at their positions, and determined whether they truly have their fingers on the pulse of the electorate.

Part of this is the inability to objectively look at the different areas of the country, and try to put up a candidate that may not be a Rush Limbaugh Conservative, but could WIN. Seriously, when was the last time the GOP put up a candidate for Senate in, say, Connecticut that had a shot at winning anything? The last time around, Senator Lieberman faced the strongest challenge from Ned Lamont, the Democratic standard bearer. Alan Schlesinger, the GOP candidate, got about 4% of the whole state! How can this party survive if it won't even find a real candidate to run in all 50 states? Time for John Kyl to find real candidates, who can win, and will vote with the GOP. That has to be job one.

3. Can't be the party of "NO"--As the opposition, the GOP is quickly becoming the party of "NO" Not exactly the way to rebuild the brand, in the face of "Yes we can". Time to start working with Obama. Considering the way Obama has made his intentions to be inclusive, very clear, this should be something that is achievable. It's time to realize that GOP positions won't be achieved just by holding your breath until you turn blue (no pun intended). Time to start shooting for getting 20-30% of your agenda included in the bills, rather than opposing bills, and getting nothing, hoping people will eventually turn on your opponents.

4. Need to express ideas in a positive way--If the GOP has new ideas, I haven't heard a single one. Saying no to stimulus, or "card check" (which by the way, NO ONE CARES ABOUT) is not new, nor is it really an idea. Time to get Newt Gingrich, or other thinkers on board, and lay out a platform for GOP success. How about taking over the energy debate with real ideas on how to decrease or dependence on foreign oil?


In the end, the GOP has got to figure out a way to stay relevant here, or they are going to find that more existing Legislators and potential Governors are going to flee the party of opposition and no ideas.

Obama Passes The Clinton Test on TARP

President-Elect Obama is a former College Professor, and reader of history, notably Lincoln. His actions, however, on the most recent Senate vote for TARP funding, show that he is also a student of other administrations, notably the Clinton administration. Let's take a look:

During 1993, despite large majorities in both the Senate and House, Bill Clinton managed only limited (at best) success in getting his agendas passed (passing tax hikes and government stimulus without a single Republican crossover, and failing in other measures such as health care and gay rights in the military). This success was pretty limited, and in the end, he never had another chance to work with a Democratically controlled congress after his first two years. It was only after losing a few legislative battles, and his party losing control of Congress, that Clinton managed to figure out how to better deal with the Congressional leadership, to craft fiscal policy.

So, Barack Obama in 2009 has Democratic majorities in much the same numbers as Clinton did in 1993, and is faced with a similar, albeit worse, economic situation today. One very important vote were staring him in the face as of yesterday--TARP Funding

Obama knew that without the funds to be made available through TARP, he would be left to watch helplessly, as the Dow Jones cratered to 6,000 and beyond, Credit freezes completely, and unemployment figures for February and March climb to 1 million jobs lost per month. So he had already threatened to veto any bill that lands on his desk cutting off funds for TARP. He knew that the Senate couldn't override his veto, and he'd get the money anyway. But this would have been a Pyhrric victory, and in the end, he would have hated to start his term off losing a battle he should have won. Pundits and Print Media would have talked about his inability to achieve consensus, and it could have been a total disaster.

So Obama made sure to get the victory in his pocket. He reached out to the middle of the Senate base, and knew that he would lose support on the far right, and far left of the spectrum (which he did). He knew that there were enough Fiscally Pragmatic Republicans that could support this action, that he could afford to lose a few Democrats, and still prevail. Equally important, he knew that there were Republican Senators vulnerable to a 2010 election in states where a vote against TARP could look bad. Even so, the Republicans would need some convincing--from him, and/or Emmanuel.

And so, that's exactly what they got. Republican leaders have praised Obama and his team for reaching out and making the assurances to them on proper use and oversight on the funds, to warrant a tepid support of TARP. A breakdown of the votes shows that TARP funds would be released with enough Republican support, to offset Democratic losses.

The Republicans who supported TARP all tended to be more moderate (Judd Gregg-NH, Lamar Alexander-TN, Olympia Snowe-ME, George Voinovich-OH), or more Fiscally inclined (Richard Lugar-IN, John Kyl-AZ).

This overrode nine Democrats voting to end TARP funding. Many of these Senators were up for re-election (Evan Bayh-IN, Blanche Lincoln-AR, Ron Wyden-OR, Byron Dorgan-ND, Russ Feingold-WI), knew that TARP would pass, but wanted to hedge their bets with the electorate, in case TARP Version 2.0 doesn't help the banks to recover.

And so, Obama and his team got a victory on a tough vote, (52-42) and did so with little fanfare, and with an honest attempt to work with Democrats and Republicans. This is a very good start, and hopefully, a positive sign of things to come.

Change in the tone of Leadership in America

Could we finally be seeing a change in the tone of leadership in America? Let's hope so. Recent examples of inclusiveness and cooperation across party lines have been popping up everywhere. And the rejection of the exclusionary behavior of the past 8 years has been in retreat. Let's look at a few examples:

Inclusiveness Examples:

Executive Branch Republicans?--Putting Bob Gates and Ray LaHood into the Cabinet shows an effort from the incoming Obama administration to get input from all sides. Additionally, advisers like Jim Jones as National Security Advisor show an effort to present a united front from America to the world.

Hillary Clinton Hearings--this was the most heart-warming of all. Republicans have held out Hillary as the demon seed of all things Liberal and Democratic. "Hillary-care" is still a bad word in most GOP circles. Yet despite years of taking slings and arrows from the Right, the hearings really were pretty complimentary, mostly courteous, and the only real challenges came on Bill's financial dealings with the Clinton Global Initiative. To see her pass out of the Senate Committee with 16 of 17 Senators expressing their support shows that the tide has definitely turned here. Could we be seeing the end of the Clinton-bogeyman syndrome in the GOP?

Pastor Rick Warren--The pick of Rick Warren to give the Invocation at the Presidents inauguration was a curious one initially. The subsequent selection of Gene Robinson (the first openly gay Episcopal Bishop) to deliver the Lincoln Memorial Invocation this Friday sends a signal that to the gay community that the time for partisan fighting will NOT be during the inauguration ceremonies. Perhaps putting differences aside, even for a week, and enjoying the ceremonies could lead to a re-visiting of old issues, but with cooler heads. It couldn't hurt.

George Will Dinner--So, what is a Progressive agent of change like Barack Obama doing, having dinner with the likes of Larry Kudlow, Bill Kristol, George Will, Charles Krauthammer, David Brooks, and Peggy Noonan? For starters, open dialogue with the media, and more importantly, the Conservative Media helps the dialogue in a few ways. Obama has shown a willingness to consider alternative points of view (which he almost certainly received an earful of at dinner). And, Obama has paid lip service to the notion that good ideas will be implemented, no matter the source. The dinner was an olive branch to the other side that their ideas will be considered seriously. I think that's all a minority party can ask.


Exclusion Examples:

Rejection of Dick Cheney's recent commentary--As Dick Cheney has finally come out of hiding from his undisclosed location, we are starting to realize why we all hate this guy. He is so partisan, so divisive, and so delusional as to think that Guantanamo has been a well run facility, and a good idea, generally. That the Iraq War was justified, and that their terms in office have been free of any real mistakes. It's probably a sign of good things to come, that the American people so soundly rejected his party.

Rejection of George W. Bush's farewell tour--Like Cheney, Bush has also been trying to sell the public on his legacy of good steady leadership, and sound judgement. Only I don't see anyone taking the bait. It's a little sad and pitiful to watch, truth be told. But we can be sure that President Bush's farewell address tonight will include at least one or more reference to the following:

• 9/11
• "we haven't been attacked since 9/11"
• "Saddam was bad"
• 9/11
• "we liberated 50 million people"
• 9/11
• "52 months of uninterrupted growth in the economy"
• Did I mention 9/11?
• "No Child Left Behind"
• "I was a Wartime President"
• Oh, I almost forgot, 9/11

If we can all get through 8:30 tonight, we can start to focus on the idea that America can once again have an honest debate and dialogue. One where the rights of the minority are protected from the tyranny of the majority. It's an interesting concept. You may have heard of it, sometime before...wait for it....9/11 (ARGH!!!!).

The Bush Presidency--Worst Ever

Recognizing that his tenure as President is close to over, we are hearing a lot recently from the President and his team, about his many accomplishments, and "solid record" of performance. It is important that anyone with a platform to do so, call out the President on his abysmal performance, and do it loudly, and immediately. So I will do my part to make sure that the people of America and the World get a complete picture of the worst President this nation has ever had.

The "many accomplishments" Bush and his team refer to are pathetic and sad. That they are being trotted out now, in the hopes that people will forget all the other miserable failures he has wrought on this nation, is a testament to a man who is living in a dream world.


Let's look at his accomplishments, shall we?

-Job Growth--His "52 months of uninterrupted growth" accomplishment is pathetic. Generating 3-4 million new jobs in 8 years sounds impressive. Until you compare it with Bill Clinton's record of helping to generate 20 million new jobs in the same 8 year time period, during the 1990's. For anyone who says that Presidents don't create jobs, I answer "I didn't bring this point up, Dubya did".

-"...I did pretty well, considering I inherited a recession...No one anticipated the Levees breaking. No one anticipated 9/11..."--Woe is me! It's not my fault. THINGS HAPPENED during my Presidency. If THINGS didn't happen, I could have been great! This kind of rationale is the kind of talk that small, unsuccessful people use, when explaining why they have never achieved much. "...if only..." So Kennedy never had to deal with a Cuban Missile Crisis? Carter could have been great, if not for the Hostages issue, or inflation? Nixon would have been a fantastic President, if not for forces out of his control, breaking the law?

-9/11--Honestly, has anyone ever done more to use a crisis to pad his own stats? Bush's record on this topic has been awful, other than trying to rally a nation who would have supported anyone sitting in the Presidents chair, for leadership. Bush politicized the event, to help the GOP increase power in the Legislature on the back of being the only party that could "keep America safe". Rather than try to allay, or calm fears, he used those fears to scare the Congress into passing the Patriot Act, push for warrantless wiretapping, and bully the country (and perhaps a few willing allies like England, Australia, and El Salvador) into a needless war in Iraq. That's not leadership. It's shameful.

And another thought on 9/11--I noticed that we talk a lot about how Bush reacted to 9/11, and how we haven't been attacked again. I don't hear much about why the administration didn't heed the concerns about the attacks coming, and do more to prevent them. Nor do I hear much about the fact that our interests are routinely attacked around the world, and there is less need to attack American soil, when terrorists can take their shots at Americans right there in Iraq and Afghanistan every day. Those attacks apparently don't count...

Now here's my list of Bush Accomplishments:

-Engaging us in a War with Iraq on the false pretenses that Saddam was linked to 9/11, was an imminent threat, or had weapons of mass destruction (take your pick. They were all wrong).

-Use of Alberto Gonzales as a tool, at first, for justifying things like the Patriot Act, Guantanamo detainees, and then later, as a political weapon at the justice department.

-Presiding over a tax policy that so favored the rich, that median wages actually DROPPED or remained stagnant for 8 years.

-Holding NO ONE accountable for Abu Gharib. Unbelievable.

-Showing spectacularly bad leadership on the Hurricane Katrina response. Not even leaving vacation for a two days AFTER the levees broke. The rest of the failures have been so public, there is no need to repeat them here, other than to note that a compliment of "heckuva good job, Brownie" was so disturbingly uninformed, and sad.

-Holding NO ONE accountable for the Valerie Plame leak. The commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence was so brazen, so one-sided.

-The destruction of the military through numerous tours of duty, stop-gap redeployments, degradation of equipment, and a failed strategy in Iraq, where we have now been for coming up on 6 full years. But hey, that was Rumsfeld's mistake, right?

-Claiming that only others had contributed to the atmosphere in Washington of Political partisanship? I will cite just one sound clip that Bush had, right before the 2006 Congressional elections. He claimed that "the party of FDR, had become the part of 'cut and run'" How is this anything but BUSH poisoning the atmosphere? To point to others for your misdeeds is the opposite of leadership. It is cowardice.

-Not recognizing the current recession for almost a year, and then basically sitting on the sidelines, hoping that Hank Paulson can figure it out? Again, this is not a leader. This is a man who puts others in charge, beholden to him, and then claims ignorance.

The last point may be the most important of all. For 8 years, we have not had a Commander in Chief. We have had a DELEGATOR in Chief. All leaders delegate, but successful leaders have two attributes that Bush does not. First, good leaders choose competent people who can achieve successful results. Second, leaders still hold themselves accountable for their teams results.

Bush has done neither of these things, putting party hacks, loyalists, and friends into positions of power, allowing his people to twist in the winds on their failures. Since America couldn't fire Bush, we fired his party in 2006 and 2008. I only hope that everyone understands that this man's actions over the past 8 years merit a judgement as the worst presidency ever, and any attempts by him to say otherwise, should be met with an offhand rejection.

Israel-Palestine--Would a THREE State Solution Work?

As we watch the violence escalate in Gaza, and people on both sides being killed, terrorized, and scapegoated, I am left to wonder what the heck can be done to end the violence in this part of the world, with some sort of lasting truce.

Some of the groundwork may already be in place, given the reaction of the surrounding country governments to the violence. A surprising rebuke of Hamas by Arab leaders has given me some hope that a solution could be brokered by Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Syria.

I find Fatah's relative silence on this matter surprising. From a political standpoint, it is smart of Fatah, and its leader Abu Abbas, to remain quiet, and let his rivals be weakened by Israeli forces. However, it is surprising that a Palestinian authority like Fatah wouldn't ignore its best interest, because it never has tried to serve its own better interests in the past.

In previous rounds of discussions, the ruling Fatah party, and Arafat's PLO, have ignored treaties, broken promises, or otherwise acted in interests more in line with the destruction of Israel, than in having its own sovereign nation, or ruling authority. Not to say that Israel has also broken promises, but unlike previous standoffs, Fatah may have recognized this time, that getting involved, rhetorically, or otherwise, would not be a good idea. Also, perhaps after years of calling for the destruction of Israel, Fatah may be finally coming to the conclusion that soverign rule isn't something to risk to that end.

So, this presents a chance for some diplomatic possibilities. My question in this whole conflict is this: If Israel can negotiate even an uneasy peace with Fatah, and the West Bank, could it make sense to work on this, and work separately on a peace process with Gaza? Does it really make sense to recognize Gaza and the West Bank as one negotiating bloc, or should we start to think of them as two separate entities? After all, Hamas has already basically taken over in Gaza, and has been running the City-state as its own, anyway.

Countries separated geographically are harder to make work, as in East and West Pakistan, post 1947. Eventually, it becomes too much to deal with, logistically. The Hamas take over from Fatah in Gaza certainly made it even more of an impossibility here.

But again, with the separation of the two authorities, there could be an opportunity to bring a peace, and increased economic incentives to the West Bank. Peace in the West Bank could help the process of ending the violence in Gaza. Could it be that we should have been considering a THREE state solution all along here?

Why Isn't Obama Leading from the Left?

So, here we are, on the precipice of history. Barack Obama is soon to be sworn in as President of the United States--POTUS 44 in "beltway" lingo. His election was the promise of "change" being brought to Washington. And many Liberals in this country thought that this promise was really going to be the return to the FDR policies of the past, with an iconic, Kennedy-like figure in Obama, being able to force the policies through a left-leaning, and lockstep Congress.

On the flip side, most Conservatives feared the exact same thing. After all, it was George Bush, Dick Cheney, Bill Frist, and Tom Delay who had turned on the automated fanny-kicker during most of the past decade, and now that they were out of power, they realized that they were the ones getting kicked, and they couldn't turn the damn thing off.

So, on the eve of the transition of power, in the wake of cabinet announcements, stimulus package agendas, and international crises, why is it the Liberals crying the loudest? Why do we hear Tom Harkin and John Kerry crying foul, while Mitch McConnell and John Boehner remain relatively complimentary of Obama's handling of things? Why have Conservatives smugly commented about Obama's "shift of policy" to the right?

Because there has been a misunderstanding, or more specifically, a misreading of Obama, the leader, in our society. We have spent so much time attaching our own hopes and fears to this man, that we have forgotten to take a good look at the man himself, and see how he learns, how he reacts to things, and what his core beliefs are.

Here are some characterizations that I hope people will pay attention to about the President-elect, because I think these are more telling of what kind of President we have truly elected.

1. Obama isn't an Idealogue, He's a Pragmatist--this isn't to say he doesn't have positions on major issues. It simply means that he doesn't adhere to them in a dogmatic fashion, as most ideologues (Liberal and Conservative) do. Often, this is a sign of a moderate, or someone who governs from the center. Pragmatists often look at issues in a real-time manner, select the most capable individuals to help them understand and craft a solution, and then act in a determined manner, always checking to see if the situation on the ground warrants a shift in strategy.

After 12 years of this type of behavior from the executive (Bush 41 and Clinton were both much more pragmatic), we have endured 8 years of rigid ideology and conservative dogma. And it has been disastrous. Even Reagan was civil, and made deals with Tip O'Neill in the 80's. But for 8 years, we have been led by a philosophy. And this country is NOT a monolith. Eventually, things had to change. And Change they will. When Obama says that change has come, what it really is, is a change in temperment. A change in leadership style. From a "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality, to a "think first, stay calm, move rationally" standard. This will anger many, who feel that swift reactions from the Executive show unwavering leadership. But that behavior has really led to some terrible decisions, and we are now having to deal with them.

What we have seen so far, is a President Elect who understands that he needs a team that can get things accomplished, that he must make decisions based on study, and facts, that he should be trying to reach the broadest consensus possible, and that above all, he needs to remain calm. We should all try to achieve so much in our own lives.

2. People believed the Conservative hype about Liberal Agendas--During the election, it was John McCain, and his follower's mission to get elected President. To do so, all campaign tactics were tried (to his credit, McCain did NOT play the race card, but just about all other tactics were efforted). This is basic political hardball. Nothing wrong with that.

The problem is when the people actually believe some of the hyperbole printed. My favorite was the line that "Obama was the most Liberal Senator in the Chamber". This was a laugh. How does a Senator who probably only spent about 18 months in the Senate before running for President, even have the voting record to really bear that out!? What had he really accomplished, other than Ethics Reform, and an agenda to secure loose nukes (hardly Liberal agenda points.). Everything else had been pretty much party line votes, and showed nothing of his leadership style, or even his ideology, other than he wasn't in line with George Bush. His opposition to the war (favored by most in the USA), support of Immigration reform (in line with the Bush administration), and support of smaller agenda topics like SCHIP funding really didn't give us much of anything to go on, from an ideology standpoint.

BUT, given all that, people still heard these lines from the campaign, and Conservatives shuddered that he would lead like George Bush, but from the left. Liberals secretly LOVED the notion. In reality, there was NO indication whatsoever that President Obama would lead like President Bush had. Now that Obama is behaving just as he had during the campaign people appear shocked. I think it may be time to take a look at this man's career before jumping to the conclusions that the McCain/Palin ticket did about him.

3. He learned a lesson from President Bush--One thing about Obama we HAVE learned about him, is that he studies history, and will do his best to avoid the mistakes of the past. I recently heard a Republican Strategist on Chris Matthew's "Hardball", who was asked why Obama should work with Senate and House Republicans, rather than ram his agenda down their throats. After all, Bush had been doing it for years. The strategist (who was absolutely fantastic) replied that if Obama didn't want a 25% approval rating, and to drive his party right out of office, he should take a lesson from President Bush on this.

It was one of the few times, watching these shows, that I was stunned by the brilliance of a "talking head". I think Obama has realized that leading only the 52% of the people that voted for you has a way of quickly making you very unpopular with anyone but your base. The Republicans have discovered that their base is not as large as they thought. If Obama wants to find out how small his Liberal base is, he can try to ram through every Liberal agenda point at once.

4. He learned a lesson from President Clinton--the hubris of trying to tackle major issues without consulting with the Senate and House really hurt President Clinton in his early years. His tax package, and other agenda items quickly turned his majority into a minority party, where it mostly stayed for 12 years.

People decried the selections of Joe Biden, and Rahm Emmanuel as part of the Obama team, until they started to realize that these were two of the better operators in Washington, in terms of getting agendas supported and PASSED into law quickly. After all, CHANGE has to actually be enacted in the end. Bringing in new blood is great, but Obama has learned from Bill Clinton, that bringing in newbies, and egoists who think they are smarter than the Congress is a sure fire way to get nothing done. And Obama knows that a 2009 without a Stimulus package, Energy policy, and a Health Care reform act is a failure.

So, let's keep an eye on future President Obama, and see if he is really the cool-hand Luke that I think he is. I think he will show the pragmatic leadership on foreign policy, and the deal-making capability on his domestic agenda, that will give enough people the feeling that they have participated in making this country better. I have high hopes for this change. But I am hoping for the change in TEMPERMENT that Obama can bring, more than anything.

The Madoff Scandal--Get Ready for More

Watching the Bernie Madoff debacle, it has truly been amazing to see the missteps--

• The Audit firm of 3 people responsible for reviewing a portfolio larger than most big-name insurance companies is incomprehensible.
• Allowing this man bail, and watching him send personal possessions to friends and family worth millions of dollars.
• Seeing some of the tip offs people have given the SEC on his alleged trades-saying that they were either lying about their strategy, or running a ponzi scheme

Because I am not a sophisticated investor (not rich or, well, sophisticated enough), I have to put my savings into regulated institutions, like Citibank, Wells Fargo, or Fund companies like T. Rowe Price, or Vanguard. The advantage of that, in this case, is that I DON'T have my money with Bernie Madoff. And if the company has been pulling a Madoff-like scandal, the SIPC would protect my funds, up to $500k.

If I did have my money with a Money Manager like Madoff, though, this whole saga would make me take one immediate action. I would go to that manager and demand an immediate cash return of some amount, say, 10% of all my holdings, in cash, within a week. I would tell my manager that it was strictly a sign of good faith, and trust, and that he or she should understand my consternation.

The reason I would demand this? I may trust my manager, but I would want some proof that my portfolio really existed.

Most people who are sophisticated investors are also pretty good about their money, and are also smart enough to think about some sort of similar proof of solvency from their money managers.

My question, then, is this: Why haven't we seen another ponzi scheme or two uncovered yet?

Warren Buffett's line is that "when the tide goes out, you can see who isn't wearing a bathing suit." Even if I believe that 99 out of 100 Money managers are honest, I still believe that there are at least a few more big ponzi schemes, or other such scams taking place, that are yet to be uncovered.

But haven't we seen another ponzi scheme yet? Perhaps the flaw in my logic so far has been that either there are more honest money managers out there than I am aware of, or people have NOT demanded a cash return like I would have expected. But a continuing drop in market prices could spark a similar admission from at least a few more money managers.

So what to expect coming up on this? I really think it could just be a matter of time here, before we see a few more Bernie Madoffs. Then the concern about the financial institutions becomes this: If we can't trust our money managers, will there eventually be a bank run in our future, as people start to panic? I hope not, but I can't shake this concern. Let's keep an eye on the news reports, and see who else isn't wearing a bathing suit in the lowering tide.

Why Harry Reid Should Step Down

Watching the Congress debate policy, and enact legislation is painful enough. But the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, preside over the chamber is just plain unwatchable. Republicans think getting Reid out of the Leadership position would improve their fortunes. I find that completely ironic, since this is a man who is moderate, Pro-Life, and has done everything in his power to allow Republicans to exert their will in the Senate Chamber. Let's take a look at this man's leadership:

1. Lieberman--watching Joe Lieberman campaign for John McCain, speak at the Republican National Convention, and speak of Sarah Palin as an experienced, suitable Vice Presidential Candidate? How can Reid stand in front of the nation, and state that Lieberman deserves his post as Chairman of the National Homeland Security Committee? This situation demanded consequences. Reid could not show leadership or strength in this situation, because he was terrified of losing a vote? Kinda sad.

2. Stem Cell Research--How has this legislation not been pressed? It has what approaches a veto-proof majority, and will surely be passed, and signed into law by a President Obama. Yet we have put this off for too long.

3. Immigration--This was an unpleasant, but agreed upon piece of legislation that Reid just couldn't get through Congress. He appeared too willing to allow negative forces to kill the bill.

4. The current budget debate--how many times do we need to see Mitch McConnell outperform Reid on the talk shows, and in the discussion of the details of the stimulus package?

Honestly, if I were a Republican, I would be thanking my lucky stars, that the Democrats have put someone in charge who behaves like a kid-brother, who has outgrown his smaller, older brother, but is still terrified of him, physically and psychologically, due to the beat downs his brother game him when they were kids. Reid still acts as if he is in the minority.

Let's take the Lieberman example. Honestly, is Lieberman really going to vote against his own best interests, and his own personal beliefs on issues, just because he doesn't like certain Democrats? It strikes me that Reid is almost scared of the debate with the Republican Senators, afraid that they will make him look bad. Does he realize he has 58-59 votes? Does he realize that Judd Gregg, George Voinovich, or Arlen Specter would never want to be the 41st vote to kill a $300B tax break, and $1 Trillion stimulus package, so that the country can sink into a depression? Is that the message THEY want to bring to their Re-election campaigns in 2010?

I am all for bi-partisanship, but the fact is that we have had elections, and Democrats have won a resounding victory. The people WANT change. If Reid isn't interested in making that happen, it may be time for Richard Durbin, or Chuck Schumer to take the reigns.

Auto Results--Should we cut Chrysler Loose?

I looked for some raw data on the auto sales for December, to try to see whether the bailout efforts on the Big 3 Automakers would make sense. Specifically, GM had noted that their lower sales estimates (or "worst case scenarios"), cited a drop in sales to about 10-11 million cars in 2009 for North America, and that they would retain their market share. Ford and Chrysler had similar types of assumptions about the auto industry, and their share of it.

In looking at the results, I am reminded of a line from a Ben Stein book, which I thought was pithy. He said something about relative importance, saying that "if a bear is chasing you, it is less important that you can outrun the bear, than that you can outrun the others in your group..." In this case, it is less important that the companies lost sales, than how they have performed relative to the industry as a whole.

With that thought in mind, lets take a look at the auto results of US Auto Sales (courtesy of Leasetrader.com):

TOTAL AUTO SALES:

December 2008/December 2007: 894,967 / 1,389,757= –35.6%

2008/2007: 13,247,431/16,154,064= –18.0%


Not good. But the almost 900,000 cars sold does translate into about a 10.7 million car sales expectation for the entire year. Given what the car makers have asked for, in their proposals to Congress, they will only survive in this environment if they are taking market share away from someone. But who will gain market share, and who will lose? And should we give money to the losers? Here's the pundit's take on this:

Winners:

Subaru--gaining market share, and actually posting an INCREASE in 2008 of cars sold? Awesome. Although I'd like to see ONE Subaru WITHOUT a bumper sticker...

December: 17,287/18,739= –7.7%
2008/2007: 187,699/187,208= 0.3%

Daimler AG--beating the market both in December and 2008. any coincidence it is doing better after shedding Chrysler?

December: 20,878/27,287= –23.5%
2008/2007: 249,750/253,433= –1.5%

American Honda--Barely ahead of the averages, and perhaps not the strong automaker I had previously thought. Still makes a solid car, though.

December: 86,085/131,792= –34.7%
2008/2007: 1,428,765/1,551,542= –7.9%

Nissan--Like Honda, they have picked up a little market share in 2008 and in December, relative to their peers. Still not the reputational pick of Honda or Toyota, but they continue to outperform the overall car market, by the numbers.

December: 62,101/89,555= –30.7%
2008/2007: 951,350/1,068,237= –10.9%


Losers:

Chrysler LLC--Clearly losing the battle of market share, both in December and overall in 2008. If auto sales across the board are hanging on to the solvency sales line, then any automaker losing market share is toast. Should we consider whether any further loans here are a good investment?

December: 89,813/191,423= –53.1%
2008/2007: 1,453,122/2,076,650= –30.0%


Hanging in there:

Ford Motor Co.--the 2008 numbers show a drop in relative market share, but the December results show that Ford has gained slightly on its competition more recently. For the "best of the Big 3" US Auto company, this could mean staying out of trouble, and off the list of companies begging for a bailout. Time to start "making quality job one" again.

December: 138,325/210,855= –34.4%
2008/2007: 2,002,279/2,559,259= –21.8%


General Motors--like Ford, GM has lost some market share in 2008, but gained on the competition a little in December. Thinning the herd (taking out Chrysler) could have a benefit to Ford and GM, particularly in the Trucks space. A note to GM--Make the most of this opportunity, or you will not get another one.

December: 220,030/319,837= –31.2%
2008/2007: 2,954,819/3,822,611= –22.7%


Some Troubling Signs

Toyota--despite some market share gain in 2008, December was an off month, relative to Ford and GM. Let's keep an eye on this, as the months progress.

December: 141,949/224,399= –36.7%
2008/2007: 2,217,660/2,620,825= –15.4%

BMW Group--same story as Toyota. In this environment, 2008 was a relatively positive year, from a share perspective. However, December was rough, and BMW is barely hanging on to market share in the US.

December: 21,648/33,797= –35.9%
2008/2007: 303,604/336,265= –9.7%

Hyundai Group--Like BMW and Toyota, Hyundai had a tougher December, relative to its peers. They have started to offer incentives, and it looks like they are seeing what we see here.

December: 38,681/70,555= –45.2%
2008/2007: 675,139/772,482= –12.6%


Conclusion:

It's a good thing we are only being asked to give money to GM and Chrysler. In my opinion, it may be time to shoot Old Yeller (in this case, Chrysler). GM has shown some signs that it can hang in there, for now. Chrysler has shown no ability to gain market share, in an industry losing sales. The foreign auto makers may start to think about production cuts of their own. This should only help the US Automakers, AS LONG AS THEY ARE GAINING MARKET SHARE. If
Toyota, BMW, or Hyundai start cutting back in the US, or Honda, Subaru, Daimler, and Nissan start to take on water in the US, Ford and GM are right there to pick up the slack. Chrysler has shown they can't compete with Ford and GM.

I think Chrysler may be on a death watch here. If they come back for more money in March, it could be time to be good parents here, and cut off the prodigal son.

Time for Humility--In America, and in my own Life

I recently saw that French Prime Minister Nicholas Sarkozy has been instrumental in negotiating the cease fire with the Israelis and Palestinians. It sparked a number of thoughts in my mind.

First on our politics--What struck me about this was the fact that during the past few days, we have heard Condoleeza Rice talk about the need for a cease fire, and the need for all sides to come back to the table for further negotiations.

How has it come to pass that the American Secretary of State is no longer seen as the honest broker, but the "cheerleader from the sidelines" of the events on the ground, and in diplomacy circles? And the French Prime Minister is now the negotiator in chief in these affairs? Sarkozy was also involved in peace discussions between Russia and Georgia, while the US played up heightened threats, and World War III scenarios.

My concern here is that America is no longer seen, after 8 years of the abysmal failure that is our foreign policy, as an honest broker--as a leader for peace and diplomatic resolution. If (soon to be) Secretary of State Clinton is to help America regain this post, she starts with an awful lot to undo.

This got me thinking about other things. If we are no longer taken seriously as a broker for peace, what else are we no longer taken seriously on? Energy policy? Free Trade? Banking and Lending practices? What about being seen as the beacon of freedom and dreams? Are we still seen by the world as leaders of great vision, and grand ambition?

After thinking about politics, I started to think about myself, and what this meant to me personally. I was fortunate to spend some time abroad in Europe and South America during the 1990's, and I found that in a lot of ways, we did have grander aspirations, and were leaders on many fronts. My fear here, though, is that the Internet has been the great equalizer for the world over the past 10-15 years, and that people from all corners of the world have used this great encyclopedia of knowledge and news to learn, grow, and in many ways, catch up. While we continue to live in America, thinking the world is still a few steps behind, they in fact are not. It's time to start looking around at where the rest of the world is, where we are, and realize we no longer lead the world in the way we think we do in our minds. So I think it's time to challenge ourselves to do better.

But how?

1. Humility--as a nation, we can be tremendously arrogant. We force other countries to bow to our wishes in order to even have diplomatic relations. We scuttle environmental treaties for selfish reasons, pre-emptively start wars on dubious grounds, and couldn't care less about the world's reaction. We dismiss others not from our shores as unenlightened, and yet many of our leaders have never even left our borders.

Time to show respect first, listen to others more, and time to admit to ourselves that while we live in a great country, we don't need to be deferential, but we do need to think about how to be better citizens, individuals, parents, sons and daughters, and neighbors. We should all make an effort to do one thing more this year than we did last, to contribute to our well-being, or town, or family, or whatever. Just one more thing from all of us could make a tremendous difference.

2. Education--time to admit that our schools are not keeping up with other countries. Part of it may be a lack of funding, or even a bureaucratic education system, or too many scholarships. Part of it is Parents taking more of an interest in their kids schooling. I, for one, want to make sure that I spend more time talking to my kids about their schooling, and taking more of an interest helping them with anything from spelling tests, to addition tables. Everyone should think about ways to do more.

3. Hard work--the people in the rest of the world have a hunger to do better than their parents did. We seem to have more of a fear that we will do worse than our parents did. This is not a recipe for long term success. I will take some time this week to look in the mirror and ask myself, "am I working hard enough to care for my family? To help my company, or community? What else can I do?" I encourage all of you to do the same.

I don't want this to be too much of a downer. But if we don't start paying attention to what is happening around us, the world will pass us by, and we will wonder how it happened.

Can the Obama Plan Help things? Couldn't Hurt...

Today, we will find out some of the details of the President-Elect's stimulus plan. By tomorrow, we should know more, but for now, let's see what we know will be in there, and what we think needs to be in place for a proper recovery.

1. What do we need? As a country, we have a laundry list of issues to be addressed. But in the short term here, we need at least the following issues to be addressed, before the economy goes further towards the dreaded "D-word" (Depression).

a. Tax relief for middle class--Payroll tax relief? Income Tax credits? Capital Gains tax cut? Tax credits for renewable energy, or hybrid/electric car purchases? You bet. Any and all of the above, as far as I am concerned.

b. Infrastructure efforts--This includes broadband, and Internet infrastructure, Fixing potholes, Bridges, Water treatment plants, Tunnels and Highways. I thought Mike Huckabee had an interesting idea. Add a lane to I-95. Maine to Florida. Cut traffic congestion. Build an Acela track to really get across the megalopolis from Boston to Washington DC in a competitive time frame and at a competitive cost.

c. Mortgage relief--I don't know if the Fed can do much more, but Mortgage rates at 4-4.5% would be a reward to those who have been prudent with their money. Time to reward the fiscally prudent with an opportunity to refinance. Time to save whomever you can save from defaulting on loans with a 100 basis point reduction in rates. Time to incent investors to buy inventory with cheap rates. Clearing out the mortgage mess can start to give the banks the room they need to get busy investing in our economy again. Just keep an eye on the predatory loans this time around, eh?

d. Credit/Lending to pick up--step c is a good start. But hopefully, TARP can clean up some of the toxicity in the market place currently. Perhaps the stronger banks will be able to digest some of the weaker competition, and find that there are a lot of good investment opportunities out there, and not as much competition for the next buck because a lot of the weaker banks are now gone. The question will be, "how fast can this attrition happen?"

e. Health Care improvements--stemming the tide of increasing co-pays and premiums would be great. Despite John McCain's rhetoric on the campaign trail, I have a family of four, my health plan is $12,000, and I don't have a gold-plated anything. I pay a co-pay of $30/doctor visit, and up front costs on any medication. My coverage ain't great, and I haven't had any plastic surgery. Even holding the line on such coverage would be a start. Getting some of the state plans funded like the Massachusetts plan set in motion by Mitt Romney, wouldn't be a bad idea. In the end, I am for a single payer, but I am open to suggestion. Anything is better than watching my health care costs rise at 2x the rate of inflation every year.

f. Affordable Education--like point e, why does this precipitous increase continue to happen? Additionally, my state and local taxes go up each year, primarily for education costs, and I don't see a marked increase in the services to my children. How can college continue to outpace inflation, and still be affordable for ANYONE in 5-10 more years? Something has to change.

g. Get off the oil standard--Oil is going back up. Don't believe me? Check Bloomberg, or Yahoo! for yourself. It's already back up $10/barrel from its recent lows. Time to stop fooling ourselves. Let's get the solar panels up, the windmills going, the Nuclear plans building, etc. We also need enough of a tax incentive to BUY hybrids, electric plug-ins, or to put some of these solar panels up on our roofs. I said it in point a, and I am reiterating it here.

2. What do we know that the plan offers? So far, not a lot. But some of these points are addressed:

a. Tax cuts--A $500/individual, or $1000/family tax credit to offset payroll taxes has been mentioned. This is a start. Also, a $3000/new worker tax credit for small businesses is a good idea. If the banks will allow borrowing at cheap rates, the opportunity to start a new business could be as good this year as it has ever been.

b. Infrastructure projects--this concept of "shovel-ready" projects being funded is a good start. Funding SCHIP and Medicare would be a good way to get State and Local governments out of the red, and back to funding their own projects. That's another plus.

So far, that's about all I have seen. The education, energy, health care, and lending legislation will hopefully be fleshed out in the details. Let's hope that our leaders have enough sense to recognize that now is the time to pursue all of this--when the country is ready to take its medicine.

Don't let Mitch McConnell scare the pants off you, when he says that the money will be spent on water slides and Mob Museums. This is coming from a guy whose party oversaw the largest deficit creation in the history of the country, and funded bridges to nowhere. In my mind, there is little credibility left in this man, when he suggests that NOW his party has seen the light, and they will be the stalwarts in protecting the American people from the out-of-control spending that the Democrats want to pass. It might have had some credibility in the past, or from some other source. But I am afraid I can't abide by stalling out the stimulus package so that someone like Mitch McConnell can take a hatchet to the details for the upcoming months.

So, in the end, this stimulus package will be enormous ($600-800B), and should at least start to address what ails us as a nation. I say, let's give it a try. We have a few weeks to study the details. Let me know if there are any pieces of the legislation that should be axed. I will put it up here.