Telling It Like It Is

THE ENTERPRISE--PEOPLE

THE ENTERPRISE--PEOPLE

THE TWELFTH REUNION CONFERENCE:  THE IMPORTANCE OF PEOPLE
We finished our 12th Reunion Conference a week ago.   As usual, the discussions were stimulating, the people intelligent and we had fun.  We also had serious discussions centered around the theme--The Importance of People.  We broke the discussions into 3 parts, each one led by a panel of highly qualified people from amongst our attendees.  Obviously I can't summarize three intense 4 hour discussions in a few words, but I will try to list just the most notable conclusions or findings.

I--Finding the Best People & Keeping Them Engaged—On "finding, screening, selecting and retaining the best people.
The failure to use an orderly, sequential hiring and screening process, which starts with a "needs assessment and job specification" leads to failures in recruiting that follows.  Not using qualified professionals to recruit, screen, interview and hire is equally damaging.  Why do so many organizations make these errors?  They are in a hurry and want to take short cuts.
The group did a sobering "breakout session" in which we tried to define the qualifications and specifications for hiring the President of the United States.   As we did this, we began to realize why we get less than ideal candidates.  Nobody really has defined what the ideal candidate is.  We didn't either; but we were further along than most Americans have been.

II--Getting People Connected, Personally & In Networks—About "connectedness" involving organizational and networking connections between people--"getting connected and staying connected" personally, using technology, and combined.
There is a great lack of awareness of the analytical tools available to understand how organizations connect and get things done.  There are also many new emerging networking tools, often using the Internet.  These networks are still changing, but are popular with many, especially younger people.  Used correctly, they can be powerful tools.  Applied indiscriminately, and they can be immense time wastes, and security risks.  The older generation needs to know more about how to use these new tools.  The younger generation needs to know more about the context in which such tools are appropriate, effective and useful, not harmful.

III--Educating and Training People for the Future—A diverse session on education and training, "Where will we get tomorrow's work force, its leaders, and how prepared will they be?"
Our educational system is far from ideal, especially in primary and secondary schools.  Even at the college graduate level, almost 100% of graduates require additional training before they can become productive in work situations.  The misconception that everyone could, or should go to college further muddles the picture.  Many people should not aspire to college, but rather to "applied education and training" in fields that are in great need.  Medical support staff, machine tool operators--competent to understand both the tooling and computer controlled machines that use it, technicians, practical nurses, etc. are all in great need, and short supply, and virtually none of these jobs are filled with college graduates.  New models of schools are  emerging, which can succeed by targeting niches--based on parents and children who are willing to make the effort and desirous of the successful outcome.  These schools spend longer hours concentrating on basic subjects (math, science, vocabulary/writing, history, etc.) rather than trying to teach "life skills," which parents have traditionally done.  These new models must be funded and replicated.  The same applies for focused training and re-training programs, which can prepare people to meet specific job needs in our 21st century economy.

A special segment featured three accomplished "turnaround executives" each of which described how they approached the "people situation" when starting a turnaround assignment.  Surprisingly (to me anyway), all three used quite different approaches, yet all three have been proven successes with multiple turnarounds to their credit.  This was a special learning for attendees

WHO'S TO BLAME FOR THE FINANCIAL CRISIS--PART 2
Democrats like CT Chris Dodd lead the parade.  Republicans who were in control for 6 years previously share the blame.  The Clinton era policies are also suspect, as are the lenghty periods of very low interest rates set by the Fed under Greenspan.  Then there are the lenders (foolish, greedy, imprudent) and the borrowers (naive, irresponsible, dumb).  Finally, the ratings agencies, who were at the heart of the worse debacles.  Last, nearly everyone in charge has a piece of this one.  Obama got the 2nd highest contributions from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (for his loyalty to them?)  A McCain senior staffer took a healthy salary from them for helping them get overextended.  Congress--especially the Democratic side--totally avoided anything to shut off the financial risk because they didn't want to jeopardize their benefactors that fund reelection campaigns.  Don't be surprised.  It works that way for both parties--just different donor with different needs.  MONEY IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL--REMEMBER?

RATING AGENCIES--FRAUD OR FAULT?
The mis-rating of bundles of lousy risks into AAA rated tranches of securities was downright ridiculous.  Think of what happened this way.  If you recall "grading on the curve in school" it makes a simple explanation.  Take all the mortgages and pretend they are students.  Grade them on the curve and the best (lowest) risks are A students.  Now pull them out and do it again, and let the best of the rest be A students.  Now pull them out and do it again, letting the best of the rest be the A students.  Common  sense tells you that this last group was actually full of the worst students (worst risks).  But by "grading them on a curve" the best of those were called A students by comparison.  That's essentially what was done with mortgages.  There were higher interest rates paid for the lower "classes" but they were still deceptively rated, and by doing it in the manner they did, all absolute risk/return measure were gone.  It is the flood of defaults in these lower classes that no one wants to buy--making them almost worthless--and there were a lot of them (Billions of $$).  IS IT FAULT?  OR FRAUD?  OR SOME OF BOTH?

NO PAIN--NO GAIN?  OR VICE VERSA?
I said a few weeks ago, bailouts are bullshit.  They are. That's why the big fuss about if, how and what to "bail out."  And moreover, who's going to oversee that huge "blank check."  And finally, how do we keep capable executives running these firms if they can be the target of scape-goating?  I'd love to see what corporate speak calls "claw back" enforcements applied.  That means going after the former executives who led their firms into trouble and "clawing back" a large part of their severance/retirement payments.  Will it cramp their lifestyle?  Maybe.  But if anything over $10-20,000,000 in compensation is clawed back, they won't starve.  They may just have to cut back to one mansion and a luxury condo and forgo the private jet to travel between the two.  THERE HAVE TO BE CONSEQUENCES.

INFLATION: DEFINED--IT'S COMING!
The creation of more money backed by no more goods or actual wealth.  Since the US owns the printing presses, it can create hundreds of billions of dollars quite easily.  But if there is no more actual "backing" in good, valuable materials, etc. then each dollar is just worth less.  That's called inflation.  AS THE NUMBER OF DOLLARS IS INFLATED, THE VALUE OF EACH DOLLAR BECOMES LESS.

WILL RACE MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN PRESIDENTIAL RACE?
Sure.  But in which direction?  Blacks will vote 95% for Obama.  Others will either be concerned about his race and the racial overtones of his wife's published views or Rev. Jeremiah Wright's ranting--or they won't.  Nobody knows.  It is human nature to be slight adverse to those of different racial origins.  But enough to make a difference in the privacy of the ballot box?  How much?  THAT'S WHY WE HAVE AN ELECTION.

MCCAIN APPEARS TO BE ACTING ERRATICALLY, OBAMA IS LAYING IN THE WEEDS.
Barack Obama doesn't have to worry about ads citing his bad judgement in voting on things during his short term in the Senate.  He seldom voted, and often when he did it was "present" instead of yea or nay.  When you have no record, it's hard for an opponent to attack your record.  John McCain has been in the Senate a long time, and thus has lots of votes open to second guessing.  Beware of misleading ads that attack McCain based on his voting record.  At least he has a record.  As McCain tries to be McCain, it appears to many that he is acting erratically.  That's his style.  Only after the fact can we judge whether he was right on, or totally off the mark. 

THE FIRST DEBATE REINFORCED WHAT THE CANDIDATES SEEMED TO BE
Obama was measured and articulate, well-prepared and with a great deal of information leading to well stated plans--albeit somewhat vague in places.
McCain was more direct, taking simplistic approaches largely based on a much greater level of experience, but with narrower focus and less articulate presentation.
So what's new about that?  That is the way they are, have been, and will be.  Obama's plans are based on more theory (and many advisors' views) of what can happen, might happen and should be done.  McCain's are much more experientially derived, although he too has advisors (one wonders if or when he listens to them), and his outcomes are what he believes can happen, might happen and should be done--from a much more historic perspective.  Their "liberal vs. conservative" positions vary considerably; yet, they actually agree on many issues, and have to extend themselves to make the difference seem greater.  In my view, ironically, one of Obama's most effective attacks in the debate was on the "wrong" decisions about the war in Iraq.  And yet, Obama stated (8 times, the media counted), "John is right."  McCain was, not surprisingly, more contentious, stating repeatedly that "He just doesn't understand."  Therein lies the great difference in age, experience and outlook—the theoretician vs. the practician.  McCain's most effective moment was his closing.  "I'm ready now."  Is he?  Or are either of them?

THE BIG QUESTION I AM PONDERING IS:
Who has the best shot at unifying America & helping create bi-partisan success?  McCain has done it in the past--multiple times.  Obama's more measured demeanor seems to be ideal for that task, but he has never done it.  McCain has led, but "marches to his own music."  Obama has never led, but makes a good case for how he would do it.  Thomas Sowell ponders somewhat the same dilemma we all face in answering this question.

The Vision Of The Left
By THOMAS SOWELL | Posted Tuesday, September 09, 2008 4:30 PM PT
Conservatives, as well as liberals, would undoubtedly be happier living in the kind of world envisioned by the left.  Very few people have either a vested interest or an ideological preference for a world in which there are many inequalities.  Even fewer would prefer a world in which vast sums of money have to be devoted to military defense, when so much benefit could be produced if those resources were directed into medical research instead.

It is hardly surprising that young people prefer the political left. The only reason for rejecting the left's vision is that the real world in which we live is very different from the world that the left perceives today or envisions for tomorrow.  Most of us learn that from experience — but experience is precisely what the young are lacking.  "Experience" is often just a fancy word for the mistakes that we belatedly realized we were making, only after the realities of the world made us pay a painful price for being wrong.

Those who are insulated from that pain — whether by being born into affluence or wealth, or shielded by the welfare state, or insulated by tenure in academia or in the federal judiciary — can remain in a state of perpetual immaturity. Individuals can refuse to grow up, especially when surrounded in their work and in their social life by similarly situated and like-minded people.  Even people born into normal lives, but who have been able through talent or luck to escape into a world of celebrity and wealth, can likewise find themselves in the enviable position of being able to choose whether to grow up or not.  Those of us who can recall what it was like to be an adolescent must know that growing up can be a painful transition from the sheltered world of childhood.

No matter how much we may have wanted adult freedom, there was seldom the same enthusiasm for taking on the burdens of adult responsibilities and having to weigh painful trade-offs in a world that hemmed us in on all sides, long after we were liberated from parental restrictions.  Should we be surprised that the strongest supporters of the political left are found among the young, academics, limousine liberals with trust funds, media celebrities and federal judges?

These are hardly Karl Marx's proletarians, who were supposed to bring on the revolution. The working class are in fact today among those most skeptical about the visions of the left.  Ordinary working class people did not lead the stampede to Barack Obama, even before his disdain for them slipped out in unguarded moments.  The agenda of the left is fine for the world that they envision as existing today and the world they want to create tomorrow.  That is a world not hemmed in on all sides by inherent constraints and the painful trade-offs that these constraints imply. Theirs is a world where there are attractive, win-win "solutions" in place of those ugly trade-offs in the world that the rest of us live in.

Theirs is a world where we can just talk to opposing nations and work things out, instead of having to pour tons of money into military equipment to keep them at bay. The left calls this "change" but in fact it is a set of notions that were tried out by the Western democracies in the 1930s — and which led to the most catastrophic war in history.  For those who bother to study history, it was precisely the opposite policies in the 1980s — pouring tons of money into military equipment — which brought the Cold War and its threat of nuclear annihilation to an end.

The left fought bitterly against that "arms race" which in fact lifted the burden of the Soviet threat, instead of leading to war as the elites claimed.  Personally, I wish Ronald Reagan could have talked the Soviets into being nicer, instead of having to spend all that money. Only experience makes me skeptical about that "kinder and gentler" approach and the vision behind it.

WHAT TROUBLES ME MOST IS EXPLAINED BY THIS SIMPLE SET OF QUESTIONS CIRCULATING ON THE INTERNET
-----------------
143 DAYS?
 You couldn't get a job at McDonalds and become district manager after 143 days of experience.
 You couldn't become chief of surgery after 143 days of experience of being a surgeon.
 You couldn't get a job as a teacher and be the superintendent after 143 days of experience.
 You couldn't join the military and become a colonel after 143 days of experience.
 You couldn't get a job as a reporter and become the nightly news anchor after 143 days of experience.
 BUT.... From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United State Senator, to the time he announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory committee; he logged 143 days of experience in the Senate. That's how many days the Senate was actually in session and working. After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to be commander In Chief, Leader of the Free World .... 143 days.
 We all have to start somewhere. The senate is a good start, but after 143 days, that's all it is - a start.
 AND, strangely, a large sector of the American public is okay with this and campaigning for him.
We wouldn't accept this in our own line of work, yet some are okay with this for the President of the United States of America?
------------------
Thus, no matter how articulately he presents his plans (whether I agree or not with his political philosophy of more, rather than less government intervention in our lives), I am troubled that I don't know what he doesn't know.  I don't know what he is totally unprepared for.  He has never felt the pain of the truly hard decisions, been forged in the brutal heat of "battle" whether literally or figuratively.  I don't always like John McCain.  Anyone who says they do is probably lying.  I know he can take the heat and keep on...  I know he will always do whatever he thinks is best for America (whether he thinks I'd like it or not).  I just don't know that about Barack Obama.

Best, John

PS:  Of equal importance is that we get the best people elected to Congress.  It actually makes the laws and controls a huge amount of our government.  The people in there now are inadequate to the task.  Many are dinosaurs that make John McCain look almost reticent and measured in comparison.  Obama talks about "clinging"--many members of the Senate and House are "clinging" to their golden parachutes as bad or worse than the executives they so freely criticize.  Let's throw some of them out!  And let's set some term limits too.

THE ENTERPRISE--NO CASH--NO BIZ

THE ENTERPRISE--NO CASH--NO BIZ

Note:  If you know of anyone whose name has accidentally been dropped from THE ENTERPRISE distribution list, please let me know.  As I was getting all my systems rearranged, I learned of some people that "fell in the cracks."   Thanks.

CONSERVE CASH--ABOVE ALL ELSE
The most common question I hear is "What should businesses do in a time like this?"  The answer is simple.  Manage for cash and conserve cash.  Credit is either tight or simply unavailable.  Profit is important, but not as important as cash flow.  Businesses can go for a long time racking up "losses" on the Income Statement if their cash flow holds up.  Eventually, they need to make a profit, and cover non-cash expenses like depreciation (equipment does wear out and money is needed to replace it).  In the short term, project detail cash flow and track it constantly.  It is like oxygen; without cash flow, the business dies.

WHOSE FAULT IS THIS WHOLE BANKING & FINANCIAL CRISIS?
It's hard to point at one person, or even a group of them.  The problem was set up back during the Clinton Administration when he and a Republican controlled Congress agreed to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act.  That was the law that restricted investment companies from doing mortgage lending, etc.  The mistake wasn't repealing it per se.  It was in not placing some much more definite restrictions on these new kinds of lenders--who happen also to be "primarily investment houses," and can get overly aggressive at times.  The US doesn't seem to learn much from history, even fairly recent history.  I am referring to the Savings & Loan "crisis" which is only a couple of decades old.  How did it happen?  Same deal.  Overly aggressive lending with too few limitations.  I guess it's like removing a "too low" speed limit and replacing it with no  speed limit at all.  Not so smart. Drivers who were impatient under the too-low limits, probably over-compensate when there are none.  Sound familiar?

So who's to blame?  Clinton and his advisers like Robert Rubin, et. al.  The Republicans--the predecessors of those free spending power-hungry folks who were just thrown out of Congress 2 years ago.  Oh, yes, a couple of others: former Fed Chairmen Paul Volcker and his successor Alan Greenspan.  Volcker's policies arguably caused the last "big" recession.  Greenspan's likely caused the past couple of mini-recessions as well as the dot-com/telcom and housing "bubbles."  Interesting that one of the main criticisms of Barack Obama's financial policies is that they are reminiscent of Jimmy Carter's, who Presided over the worst bout of inflation,  and the highest mortgage interest rate bubble ever, and was behind a piece of the S & L crisis.  Who are Obama's advisors"  Those old sages, Rubin and Volcker.  Hmmm.  Think about it.  But then blaming a few high level people is wrong too.  It took lots of fools to make this big a mess.  Fools like these:

FOOLS LENDING MONEY TO FOOLS WHO SHOULDN'T BE BORROWING IT TO BUY HOUSES THEY CAN'T AFFORD?
Why is this not a disaster waiting to happen.  When mortgage lending was removed from the exclusive province of banks, and spread to the investment companies, the timer on a time bomb was "armed and ticking."  Then it was just a matter of time.  Or doesn't anyone recall the Savings and Loan crisis of a couple of decades ago?   Back during the Clinton Administration, when Alan Greenspan was his counselor as the Fed Chairman,  the move to allow non-banking institutions to do mortgages gave this problem its start.  There was a lot of noise about the "poor folks" who couldn't afford to own homes (many of which were minorities--but far from all of them).  These bad credit risks were "red-lined," which became synonymous with discrimination or racism.  But it wasn't.  It was simply risk management.   So what did the government do, in all its (liberal) wisdom?  It made if possible for folks who couldn't afford to own homes to buy them anyway. 

The clever financial institutions figured out that if you took a bushel of bad apples and just removed the top layer and replaced it with good apples, that bushel would still be sold as if it was all good apples.  But those rotten apples are now smelling up the place, and those people who couldn't afford to own homes are losing them--until the government, in all its wisdom--decides to "bail them out, too."  DUMB.

AND WE WORRY ABOUT PRIVATIZING SOCIAL SECURITY?  ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
Fed to Give A.I.G. $85 Billion Loan and Take 80% Stake In an extraordinary turn, the Federal Reserve agreed Tuesday to take a nearly 80 percent stake in the troubled giant insurance company, the American International Group, in exchange for an $85 billion loan.  OK, let's see now.  As taxpayers, our government what spent several hundred billion dollars to buy a large stake (it's called a bailout") in Bear-Stearns, Freddie Mac & Fannie May, and now AIG.  So we, the taxpayers-citizens of the US,  "owe" about $1000 each in "new obligations"  to bail out (in return for warrants--which will allow the government to buy stock at an advantageous price) 1) a failing investment firm, 2) a failing insurance company, and 3) & 4) part of two huge mortgage underwriters.    In many respects, this is like fire-fighters actually setting a smaller fire to burn a clear area so a much larger forest fire can be controlled.

What will come next?  How about loaning another $50 Billion or so to the 3 large US automakers.  We might as well add them to the government/taxpayers portfolio--NOT.  it's not the same thing at all.  Why?   Because after that, where do we draw the line?  A bigger issue than the auto makers is the hundreds of small banks will likely fail.  Small banks over-expanded too--just like housing.  The returns were too juicy to pass up.  Now the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which insures bank deposits) is now under-funded, so  it will need another  $10-20 Billion, maybe more.  This started with Clinton's administration, but got worse on George Bush's (& still Alan Greenspan's) watch.  John McCain and others in Congress tried to slow or stop it--to no avail.  Senate Finance Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D, MA) threatened to label their mortgage lending limits a "racist/discrimination" issue if  he didn't get his way.  So he did get his way, and now we pay.  FYI--Frank is also openly gay--which may or may not mean anything.    During his (undistinguished) Senate career and Presidential run, Barack Obama's donations from Freddie Mac and Fannie May reportedly have tallied in the $300 Million range.  (John McCain's--$20,000 or so.  AIG gave almost the same amount to each ($40,000), although its former CEO Hank Greenberg was a big McCain supporter.)  Whose allegiance lies where?  Want to guess?

OBAMA: SAYS ONE THING, AND DOES ANOTHER
Investor's Business Daily called this article "OBAMA'S DOUBLE DEALING DIPLOMACY."  I predict you will be surprised, maybe astounded at what it says.  There will be no rebuttal from the Obama camp, since they don't want these shady deeds to get any more coverage.  They are too busy trying to dig up dirt on Sarah Palin, where they are finding nothing but fabricated issues.  Also notice how tightly under wraps Obama's wife Michelle has been held, instead of coming out in opposition to Palin.  Her anger is palpable and not far below the surface, so expect her role to be carefully limited.  She's smart; but she's also much angrier and more militant than her husband--and that will be the "pillow talk" he hears if he makes it to the White House.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306456935180750

WHO'S KIDDING WHO--PALIN IS NOWHERE NEAR READY TO BE PRESIDENT
I was once asked whether the fact that I had run a $200 or $300 million company made me capable of running a $20 or $30 billion company.  The answer is yes, and no.  From a leadership standpoint, yes (largely because I had run a multi-divisional, multi-national business).  It's more people in more places, and many repeats/variations of a wide range of issues.  But from a managerial standpoint, no.  There is an entirely different cascading of communications, processes, authority, roles/responsibilities and how things work in a very large, diverse company.  It would take time to learn them.  I recall learning a lot when I went from a one business, one plant, in the USA at Huffy to 9 businesses with 13 facilities scattered around the globe on 4 continents with Rubbermaid.  There were many new issues and new problems to cope with.  Insurmountable?  No.  But there was a learning curve.  Bigger, or more widespread entities require some different managerial approaches than smaller ones.  I'd imagine (never having been there) that the same is true for government jobs.

Every time I hear the question about whether Sarah Palin is ready to be President, I don't know whether to grin or grimace.  Of course she's not.  Until a few weeks ago, she was the sitting Governor of Alaska--and the last I heard, there is no Presidential training course offered to sitting governors.  George W. Bush is evidence of that.  Who might have been more prepared for the GOP spot?  Mitt Romney?  Mike Huckabee?  Rudy Guiliani?  Hard to say.  What Governors do learn is to "govern;" to be the Chief Executive officer of a large bureaucratic public government unit.  That's closer than what a lightly experienced Senator gets.  That explains why Obama should be better able to "debate the issues" and Palin should be better able to manage a governmental unit.  What Obama has had is a two-year crash course on the issues facing the US, including a ton of media attention.  Palin has had 2+ weeks.  No contest--not yet.  Can she be ready by Jan.?  I doubt it.  Is Joe Biden?  I doubt that too.  Is Barack Obama?  Who knows, but doubtful.  He and Biden clearly should have a better grasp of the issues and their nuances given Obama's campaign preparations and Biden's lengthy Senate career (like McCain's). 

So let's quit pretending that Sarah Palin is something she isn't--at least not yet.   She is a breath of fresh air; a natural "take-charge" leader; a down-to-earth person.  That's not a bad start.  Consider how closely her personal and governmental experience compares with Obama's.   She was "line," and he was "staff."   If he could learn about the issues, she can too; if he can deal with the media and campaign scrutiny, she can too.  But don't insult my intelligence by saying "she's ready to step in now."  She's not.    That only happens in the movies.  But, most likely, neither is Obama!)  One of my favorite sayings is "In theory, there's very little difference between theory and practice; in practice there's a hell of a lot of difference."  Understand?

A POLITICAL PARABLE
A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a liberal Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes 'on those who can afford to pay more' and firmly believed that the Bush and Reagan cuts of marginal tax rates did nothing but make the rich richer.  She was, therefore, ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on everything she'd learned in college, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father.  He responded by asking how she was doing in school.  Taken aback, she answered that she still had her 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.  Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"

She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."

Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!'"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the Republican party."

"That's all folks!"

Best, John

THE ENTERPRISE--GET READY FOR A RANT!

THE ENTERPRISE--GET READY FOR A RANT!

FINALLY--KEITH OLBERMANN & CHRIS MATTHEWS REMOVED FROM MSNBC'S ELECTION COVERAGE DESK
Chris Matthews has always been a pain in the a--, but he's perhaps gotten worse in recent times, egged on by his partisan sidekick Keith Olbermann.  For those who don't remember, Olbermann was a failure as a sports caster.  He was then, as now, opinionated more than informed and alienated listeners more than enticed them to listen.  Now he's done it again, and Chris Matthews goes with him.  Their departure only slightly revises the incredible liberal media bias in the "main stream media" and especially NBC.  When it lost its "star," Tim Russert, NBC lost the last vestige of being a network that reports the news.  Rather, it subscribes to the New York Times philosophy of making up the news as they want it to be--whether that is the truth or not.  GOOD RIDDANCE (although I'd seldom watch them any more without an anti-emetic nearby.) 

For those who watched Charlie Gibson's interview with Sarah Palin, saw a continued charade of a "newsman" pretending to be polite attempt to ambush, trap and otherwise portray in a bad light.  The bias continued in the editing, cutting off the context of Palin's answers whenever it wasn't negative enough for ABC's purposes.   Bill O'Reilly's attempts to pin down Barack Obama paled in comarison--but was consistent with Fox's right leaning coverage.  Now Fox, too, has to refresh Brit Hume's "panel of experts," and not stack 2 guys from the Daily Standard and one from Roll Call on it all at once. WHAT A DISGRACE THE SO-CALLED "MAJOR NEWS MEDIA" HAS BECOME.  IT'S HARD TO GET A "FAIR & BALANCED" REPORT (Even on the network that uses that as its slogan.)

Charles Krauthammer says it very well, in the closing paragraph of a recent article describing how Charlie Gibson tried to trip up Sarah Palin by asking about "...the Bush doctrine"... on which Krauthammer (the originator of the term) points out, Gibson (and the NYTimes) was wrong--and Palin was right by pressing him to explain what he meant by the term.  Here's how Krauthammer closed the column:
---------
... "Such is not the case with the Bush doctrine. Yes, Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Gibson. And at least she didn't pretend to know — while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, "sounding like an impatient teacher," as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes' reaction to the phenom who presumes to play on their stage. ..."
---------
THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN IS PANIC-STRICKEN
How do I know?  Not from the media other than its reports of poll results.  I know because I got a "polling call" tonight and decided to go through it just to see what it was all about.  It was over 100 questions, posed .)by a young man of Asia (I'm guessing Indian or Pakistani from his accent).  The questions started out innocuous enough, like you might expect.   As they progressed, especially after I identified myself as a Republican who intended to vote for McCain, the tone of the questions changed noticeably.  The questions became a recitation of the Obama campaign talking points about what McCain will do compared to what Obama will do and whether that would make me more likely or less likely to vote for Obama.  I didn't even have to listen to the last 2/3 of each question, they were so slanted and predictable.  Then the next set were a fishing expedition for anything/everything I didn't like about McCain--or anything I liked about Obama.  The final set was probing which of Obama's positions I might find a little more acceptable.  The reason for this was clear.  Obama is losing it and grasping at every means to accumulate information and polling results that he can direct his focus on.  Some of the questions were so glaringly slanted that they were offensive.  WHEN POLLSTERS GET VERY SLANTED, THEY ARE LOOKING FOR ANYTHING TO BAILOUT A CAMPAIGN THAT IS FAILIN' (WHICH RHYMES WITH PALIN)

HOW STUPID IS GM?  OR ARE GM'S EXECUTIVES SMART--(TANK THE RESULTS TO JUSTIFY A GOV'T BAILOUT?)
Here's how stupid:  Five GM models were cited in the Wall Street Journal as selling less than 3000 units per month (two Pontiacs, one Saturn and two Saabs).   In fact the sales of the two Saab models were miniscule--around 250 per month--after all that Olympic advertising money GM wasted. What is wrong with GMs management.  It seems to do fine making cars for Europe, China and other places.  In the US, in spite of some really nice vehicles (Cadillac CTS, Buick Enclave, Chevy Malibu, etc.) it continues to waste resources on complexity, poor selling losers, on too many brands, and failed ideas.  If GM shareholders and the board don't force some action, GM deserves to fail--and be sued by shareholders for "dereliction of duty."  C'MON, GM--GET RID OF SOME COMPLEXITY!!  DROP 3 BRANDS (SAAB, HUMMER AND SATURN) & THE EXCESS DEALERS, & DROP STILL MORE OF THE DUPLICATED "BADGE & TRIM-VARIATION" MODELS.

COMPARE THESE TWO WORDS DESCRIBING MORE STUPIDITY--THIS TIME THE GOV'T's--IF IT FALLS FOR THE TRICK
Bail--T and Bull---T:  Let me make it clearer.  A government loan to bail out GM, Ford and Chrysler is totally irresponsible and complete BULLSHIT!  GM is still paying dividends--what?  Cerberus (the private equity firm that owns most of Chrysler) is raking in its fees, even though there is little chance that Chrysler will survive in anything like its current form.  Ford, of the three, might deserve help since Alan Mulally is doing the right things--and making better vehicles.  But bailouts for private companies are a slippery slope--and one that must be avoided!  "BAILOUTS ARE BULLSHIT."  THERE'S NO MORE DELICATE WAY TO SAY IT.  (Besides, the gov't has enough of its own messes to "bailout"--like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae).

$1 BILLION OF OUR TAX MONEY TO GEORGIA?  UGH!
Someone in Washington is also stupid.  Probably a lot of them--for sending $1 Billion of US tax dollars to Georgia (not the one south of Tennessee, where it might be put to good use rebuilding infrastructure).  Why, oh, why does the US feel it needs to give money to every place on earth, including those who thumb their noses at us.  Dumb, dumb, dumb.  (And tell the Iraqis to start paying some of their own bills or pay back some of the Billions we've spent over there instead of sitting on $75 Billion in oil money.) KEEP OUR MONEY AT HOME, AND USE IT TO FIX PROBLEMS HERE.  QUIT TRYING TO BUY ALLIES OR RESPECT.  EARN BOTH BY THE RIGHT BEHAVIOR.

THE "POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK"
This is an old term that is now bordering on politically incorrect (Like last week's Afghanistan "Tar Baby.")  But it fits perfectly in this campaign season.  First it was McCain who "adjusted" some of his positions in the primary season, meanwhile, accusing Obama of being a flip-flopper.  Well, he hadn't seen anything yet.  Obama now accuses McCain of reinventing himself--HA!  Obama wins the flip-flop derby hands down. He has revised so many of his positions over the past few months, that it's hard to imagine how he (or we) can remember where he is (or was) at any given time.  First he opposed drilling, now he'll consider it.  Next he is reconsidering his long standing position on rescinding the Bush tax cuts, if the economy is in/near recession--DUH--(that's what the GOP has been saying). These are just the two most recent ones.  He got past the Iraq surge opposition, by complementing the troops and fuzzing his withdrawal plans into a blur of nuances--(depending on his audience).  IF YOU DON'T LIKE OBAMA'S POSITIONS, WAIT A MINUTE...THEY'LL BE "RE-THOUGHT" AND CHANGE.

PELOSI NOW FLIPPING TOO...SORT OF...
Nancy "I'm saving the planet" Pelosi has now decided that maybe drilling offshore is OK after all.  Why?  Because the country is for it and she doesn't want her Democratic party to be accountable for making the wrong decision.  Her spin is, let them drill, but let's charge BIG OIL for the rights-to places where they already paid once to have the rights.  Maybe we should start charging Pelosi twice for the cost to taxpayers of her long flights from SF to DC and back.  Of course she took the House on vacation with this issue boiling, and now has to come back with something.  If there is no vote, the ban on drilling expires in October, so she has to do something fast--to save face.  DRILL, BABY, DRILL--BUT DON'T STOP THERE--DO IT ALL

ECONOMIC ANALYSTS MUST WANT TO WORSEN THE ECONOMY
We all know that the Federal Government's statistics are suspect and often subject to huge revisions.  When the 4Q of '07 was revised from a slight gain to a slight decline in GDP.  The 1Q  of '08 came in at a small gain, which pretty much held up.  Now the 2Q comes in at a 1.9% GDP gain and the revision takes it up to 3.3%.  Analysts and economists say, "that can't be right," "it doesn't fit our script."  What crap.  Either  believe the numbers or don't.  You can't pick and choose to believe some (which are in line with what you'd like them to be) and reject others (which don't jibe with your views).  IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE ANSWER, CLAIM "IT MUST BE WRONG"...  IT WORKS, SOMETIMES.

FROM AN INDUSTRY WEEK COLUMN IN 1998
The recent debacle of an old article about United Airlines stocl plummeting based on a old, out of date bankruptcy filing report, brought to mind this story (which many of you have read before!)
Many years ago, I read a short story that describes a chain of events that can unfold in such a situation.

"HARD TIMES ARE COMING"
    The scene is a bistro in Paris. A young painter enters the bistro and asks the waiter for a bottle of his finest wine to celebrate his first big
commission--on a painting for a rich businessman. As waits for the wine, he notices a newspaper lying on a chair at the next table. The headline reads,
"Hard Times Are Coming--All Will Suffer from Downturn."
    Alarmed, he calls the waiter back and asks whether he has opened the wine. Finding that the expensive bottle is still unopened, the artist tells the
waiter to bring him a more modestly priced wine instead. The waiter asks why he wishes to change--is he less excited about his good fortune? "No,"
replies the painter, "but look at that headline--'Hard Times Are Coming' I think I should be cautious."
    When the waiter goes to exchange the wine, he encounters the owner of the bistro, who asks why he is not opening the fine wine. The waiter relates the painter's reaction to the headline, "Hard Times Are Coming--All Will Suffer from Downturn." As the owner returns to his office, he ponders the
food and wine order he'd just placed for his bistro. He has ordered the finest wines and cheeses, and assorted trimmings, because business has been
good lately.
    But now uneasy about it, he picks up the phone and calls his supplier back, asking to reduce the size of the order and downscale the assortment of food and wine. When the supplier inquires why, the bistro owner repeats the headline, "Hard Times Are Coming." The supplier, himself a small
businessman, then calls his supplier--a larger company--and cuts back on his future orders--just in case.
    When the owner of the larger company sees the order from one of its best customers reduced sharply, his concern is great, especially after he hears the reason--the headline, "Hard Times Are Coming--All Will Suffer from Downturn." The owner then decides to cut down on his extravagances, so he calls the young painter and cancels the painting he had commissioned.
    The young painter returns to the bistro that evening, crestfallen, and asks for a bottle of its cheapest wine--to drown his sorrow. As he awaits the cheap wine, the painter reaches over and picks up the newspaper, still lying on the chair next to him. He discovers that the date on it is two years old!

SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECIES SOMETIMES COME TRUE...BEWARE -- ALL AMERICANS...

NEWS FLASH TO THE MEDIA--BUSINESS CYCLES HAPPEN
A recent article seemed almost "surprised" that malls are overbuilt and on the verge of a huge collapse.  Why is this such a surprise?  Housing is deep in the "dumper."  People who can't afford their houses are unlikely to frequent a new high-end mall.  Malls, retail stores, etc. have been overbuilt in the US for at least a couple of decades.  Winners survive,  Losers close and become a blight on communities.  And yet, developers charge ahead with mindless proliferation and over-expansion.  And they get what they deserve.  Create complexity through over-expansion and suffer the consequences.  It will keep a new bunch of attorneys busy sorting it all out.  BUSINESS CYCLES HAVE TO RUN THEIR COURSE TO REMEDY THE IMBALANCES THAT CAUSED THEM.  MEDDLING WITH THEM MAKES THEM WORSE.

BOTTOM LINE FOR TRUE AMERICAN PATRIOTS:
I dare you to invest the 6 -1/2 minutes to watch this video!  Paste this link into your browser, then sit back and listen.  When it's done, sit for 30 seconds longer and think about the message you just heard.  Common sense isn't very common any more.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=pKFKGrmsBDk&eurl=mhtml:mid://00000314/
I like the line that follows these words, "don't explain, don't make excuses,  because..." 
"THOSE WHO MATTER DON'T MIND, AND THOSE WHO MIND, DON'T MATTER."

Best, John

THE ENTERPRISE--No Brainers & Other Stuff

THE ENTERPRISE--No Brainers & Other Stuff

COMPLACENCY?
I think it was Yogi Berra who said, "There's a lot you can see by just looking."  How true; in business, in politics, in sports, and in life.  This weekend, an Ohio State football team that is loaded with talent struggled to beat a nearby in-state "rival" Ohio University that was loaded with motivation and passion.  For a large part of the game, that motivation, passion and intensity overcame the talent deficit. In business, there are many times when a more talented company takes a competitive situation for granted, and loses to an upstart who just simply "wants it more."  No matter how much you might agree with this, it requires constant vigilance to avoid it happening.  I know, I've been there, and made that mistake--and it hurts--but there was no way to warn me.

"NO BRAINERS"
There's also the business situation I call a "no brainer."  Funny how it happens, but I found that there are two kinds of "no brainers."  No brainers are meant to be those situations that are so simple, straightforward and easily within a company or a person's capability, that it almost seems "no brains" are needed.  Do it by rote, by habit, by memory, almost automatically.  Until the other kind of "no brainer" strikes.  That's where you don't use any brains, and overlook a different set of circumstances that changes everything.  Taking a competitor for granted; assuming a customer won't notice; failing to attend to details, dot the i's and cross the t's, and so forth.  Be careful, because the difference in talent between the best and the next tier isn't great enough to win with a "no brainer."

SHAPE SHIFTERS REDUX
How things change and times change.  Dell is looking into selling its factories.  Once a huge competitive advantage in making whatever kind of computer you wanted--and ordered on line or via 800 number--now a remnant of a "shape of value" that no longer wins.  Most computers come with all the most popular features.  Just like Japanese cars did when they grabbed a big chunk of the US car market from the slow, "order the options at extra cost and wait for the car" business model of the US carmakers.  Or the time Burger King's "have it your way" started taking customers away from McDonald's "have it one way" mass production burger business.  As the "shape of value" is constantly shifting, companies that don't shift with it, lose--sometimes fatally.  Remember "film cameras" and the roulette of wondering how those pictures came out?    The irony is that leaders seldom realize they are becoming obsolete until the upstart has knocked them off their lofty perch and taken a big chunk of share from them.  It's really hard, nearly impossible, for a leader to abandon what got them there for some new, risky new way of doing things.

POLITICS TOO
Both candidates are imploring followers to let them lead the change of the US government.  God knows it needs to change.  The irony in this case is that the one thing they agree on is that the government needs to change, and their way is the best way.  Devotees of Obama are sure that his approach is right.  Those who favor McCain (and now "plain talking" Sarah Palin) think they have the best ideas.  Wouldn't it be nice if the best elements of both candidates could be combined?  Of course no one would agree on that.  What they can agree on is that whoever gets elected will have arguably the hardest set of problems of any president in our memory.  Worse yet, after the Republicans in control of Congress did little but spend a lot and get into trouble, the Democrats took over and now appear to be heading in the same direction.  The best ideas are coming from a bunch of "moderates" that the Democrats call "Blue Dogs" and that the Republicans have yet to name (but they sound a lot like John McCain).

INSANITY
I've heard this definition so many times I forget who said it first.  "Insanity:  Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."    Companies like GM still don't get it.  Even with some noticeably better cars, when you spread your resources across too many brands, models, dealers, etc. complexity cripples the company.  I only hope our governmental leaders have heard it--and believe it too.  Albert Einstein said, "Today's problems cannot be solved by thinking the way we thought when they were created."  This leads to a similar conclusion.  The question is how differently to think?  What to do differently? What is the truth?  What will work?  Where can compromises be reached?  Which assumptions are still valid?  Has the USA become a nation of special-interest-driven "can't do?"  No matter what you want to do, some special interest is either offended, violated or simply doesn't like it.  Look at the response to Sarah Palin, her family, etc.

If that isn't daunting enough, there are huge global uncertainties.  Last week a PORTFOLIO magazine article stated the belief that oil will return to the $50/bbl. range within the next 2 years.  His premise was that Europe and Japan will follow the US into a recession or near-recession, dampening demand, and that Asian demand would be damped by declines in developed countries that buy from China, et. al.  And yet, another pundit postulated that oil could easily reach $200/bbl.  What to do in business and in government changes a lot depending on which of those assumptions are closer to reality?  I know that both have to be considered--and neither one of them is a "no-brainer."

AFGHANISTAN--THE MODERN "TAR-BABY"
An old Disney story about Uncle Remus (now considered politically incorrect, and out of favor) told about Bre'r Rabbit and the Tar Baby.  When Bre'r Rabbit attacked the Tar Baby, the harder he struggled, the more entangled he got.  As we consider what to do in Afghanistan (and Pakistan) it would be well to heed the message of the "Tar Baby."  Iraq looked that way, but now appears to be moving toward a better resolution. Afghanistan will be much more intractable.  Just ask the Russians who tried for a long time to get it under control--to now avail.  Will we learn from history?  Or are we destined to repeat it?

LESSONS AND UNKNOWNS
I think that is enough of what we might learn from history, from experience and from "sweating the details."  I don't know the answers; I just know a lot of questions, and what worked in other (but different) situations.  Are we better off with a President who has experience, character and resolve or one who has new ideas and inspiring rhetoric--but as yet, unproven?   Psychologists have proven that the part of our brain that converts thoughts into verbal form simply cannot explain all the knowledge that is drawn from experience, forgotten learning and "gut feel."   Me, I'm going with experience, character and proven toughness under pressure.  The other guy is young enough to have another chance if I'm wrong.  How about you?

Best, John

THE ENTERPRISE--What don't we know?

THE ENTERPRISE
In politics, like in business, the ability to communicate, to inspire and to engage your followers is an essential skill of leadership.  There is little doubt that Barack Obama has that skill in abundance.  I never fail to be amazed at his skill with words (how much of it does he write himself, I wonder), and with his ability to deliver a message.    The convention's closing stadium setting was amazing.  Obama's adoring throng and his skillful delivery made for a remarkable night.  Also like politics, business decisions are fraught with peril because they often must be made with incomplete or flawed information, and assumptions about how customers or competitors or commodity markets will behave.  And yet, those decisions must be made.

WHAT'S DIFFERENT THESE DAYS?
A retired friend posed this question to me last week. Of course globalization came to me right away, after watching the Olympics Opening Ceremony from Beijing.  Then, shortly after that, I realized that in addition to globalization, the fragmentation of media was a huge issue.  It is now possible to "rifle-shoot" at your target markets, but the challenge is to decide which media to use, and what kinds of ads to run. Next I concluded that It the environment, especially for business, is more complex than ever. 

The next point I raised was that there could be a resurgence of US manufacturing based on inflation in China and changes in Chinese laws and business conditions.  Then I realized, I had to add: "Unless the Democrats pass the Employee Free Choice Act, which will do away with private Union elections and doom the US employers to a resurgence of Union demand-led inflation in wages and benefits."  This law change, along with the "Fairness in Broadcasting Act," are two of the most insidious, damaging and misguided laws currently on the Democratic Congressional legislative agenda.   A few bad legislative decisions, combined with new taxes (to pay for too-rich programs) will crush any hopes for a US manufacturing resurgence, and cripple the US economy for a decade.  It's happened before.  It can happen again.  (I urge you to write your legislators opposing both of these laws.)

ALMOST CONVINCED
I sat and watched and listened to Barack Obama all the way through his "acceptance" speech.  As he was wrapping up I thought, "what a brilliantly crafted speech." He almost had me convinced that perhaps he could be the ONE to lead America to a new and better future.  Then reality hit me.  It was an artful repetition of failed ideas, and un-doable promises.  During my business career, when I was head of a very successful business (thanks to a very talented management group that worked with me), I made some speeches.  I told the audience WHAT we were doing and WHAT we had done.  Many around me asked me, "Aren't you afraid that you are giving away your competitive secrets by telling people WHAT you and your company are doing?"  My answer was easy and direct, "No, telling them WHAT to do is not giving away much at all.  I didn't tell them the hard part:  HOW we were doing it.  The WHAT is easy; the HOW is hard." 

WHAT IS EASY; HOW IS HARD
There, in a nutshell is the flaw in Obama's entire pitch.  IF he could do everything he said, that alone would be remarkable.  He can't.  Worse yet, if he tries, he will trash the US economy in the process, just like some of his predecessors did.  Bill Clinton had the benefit of Reagan's Cold War "victory," and George H.W. Bush's tax increase combined with and the tax income from the "dot-com boom" to provide a big economic tailwind on the way to his budget surplus (although much of those profits were either illusions or fraudulent, and were later reversed, which turned into massive losses that lowered tax income during George W. Bush's first term).  Things are not always the way they seem--especially economic shifts and politicians' time in office.  However, the Republicans in control of Congress (with some help from the Democrats across the aisle) during Bush's first 6 years went "spending crazy," and Bush sat on his hands (and his veto pen) while it happened. Shame on all of them.

TALK IS EASY; DOING IT IS HARD
But even if Obama could actually do everything he promised, I know I'd disagree with HOW he 'd go about it.  I will wait for next week to see how I feel when John McCain lays out his plans and aspirations.  In the meanwhile, the one thing Obama did do tonight was "lay down the gauntlet."  He offered to "debate" John McCain on national security.  I only hope John McCain offers (again), to hold real debates, in Town Hall settings, instead of the phony staged "debates" which are little but fodder for the mainstream media.  These so-called are so managed, manipulated and watered down, that they prove little.  Let's have a real debate; one that is unscripted, unrehearsed, and head-to-head.  Then we will see if Obama knows the HOWs to go with his WHATs, and what John McCain really stands for (NOT another Bush term!).

MC CAIN'S IMPERATIVES
Dick Morris, formerly of the Clinton/Democratic camp is now a devoted Republican (as is Dennis Miller)and he lays it out this way:
--------------------

From Dick Morris:
DENVER-THURSDAY  NIGHT
A master was at work last night. A politician who can inspire hope filled in the blanks of his program and articulated his vision with skill and panache.  Barack Obama, never short on inspiration, gave us specifics. He delivered a "State of the Union Address," laying out his programs fully and well. He gave exactly the right speech with the right delivery and balance of detail and rhetoric.  And he wove his background and his philosophy into and around his proposals, combining moving words with specific proposals. The speech will surely give him the bounce he needs - turning a deadlocked race into a potential landslide. 

John McCain can take back the ground Obama won last night - if he does it right. To wit:
    1) Explain why his first term won't be a Bush third term. This man who opposed Bush in 2000 must rebut the charge that he's but an echo of W.
    McCain led where Bush feared to tread: against torture, for ethics reform in Congress and the Executive Branch, for campaign-finance reform, for regulation of tobacco, for tough protections for worker pensions and limits on golden parachutes. He was out front early with a broad program to promote alternatives to oil, and with the surge strategy that won the war in Iraq. He's made a careerlong priority for balancing the budget by cutting spending - and eliminating pork, including congressional earmarks.
    2) He needs to state the obvious fact: Obama's programs will cost money, and the hundred words he devoted to how he'll pay for them do not adequately face the challenge; Obama's tax cuts are illusions - he'll dig deeper into our wallets, but just isn't telling us now.
    3) McCain needs to explain the economic disaster that Obama's taxes will trigger. He needs to put the current economic malaise into perspective and paint what will happen if Obama's tax program is approved.
    4) Finally, McCain needs to explain how Obama's proposals to gut the Patriot Act, and his weakness in facing foreign crises, will make us vulnerable.
    Obama speech won't stand for months without rebuttal: McCain's convention starts Monday. His task there is enormous; he'd better get to work.

---------------------------------
Will McCain actually take these 4 steps?  We'll see.

IT TAKES MORE THAN SKILLED COMMUNICATIONS & INSPIRATION--THERE MUST BE DEPTH & BREADTH OF SKILLS & OF CHARACTER--IS IT THERE IN OBAMA?
Stephen Covey's best selling book 7 Habits of Highly Effective People describes two different leadership types:  Personality-based leaders (focused on looking good and talking a good game) and Principle-based leaders (actually doing the right things, and sticking by principles)  Author Jim Collins, in Good To Great describes different kinds of leaders, and his Category 4 and 5 leaders are familiar in this context.  Cat. 4 leaders often come from outside organizations, appear rather suddenly but are charismatic, inspirational and sometimes do well.  Cat. 5 leaders grow within organizations, gaining the respect of the people on the inside; they may not be as artful at speaking and firing up the organization, but their inspiration comes from a deep respect for their knowledge and character.  These are the "great leaders" according to Collins.  I'll leave it to readers to see the parallels in these two management-leadership classics and how they compare to the two candidates.

WHITHER BARACK OBAMA?
To share with you some of the other points I have considered, I am also posting here an IBD column by Charles Krauthammer, which I think is very insightful.  I actually liked Obama's speech.  I said to myself, maybe he can lead America to a new future.  He left behind some of the soaring rhetoric, and replaced it with good old fashioned politics-he just did it very, very well.  Then my rational mind kicked in and said, "but CHANGE to what kind of new future?"  And how can I have confidence that this incredibly articulate and persuasive young man is not just a "talented actor" playing a role.  And what will he do when there is no script to go by, and he is on the "hot seat?"  These questions are raised well by Krauthammer, so read on.
---------------------------------

And Where Are The Witnesses To His Ability?
By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER | Posted Thursday, August 28, 2008 4:30 PM PT

Barack Obama is an immensely talented man whose talents have been largely devoted to crafting, and chronicling, his own life. Not things. Not ideas. Not institutions. But himself.  Nothing wrong or even terribly odd about that, except that he is laying claim to the job of crafting the coming history of the United States. A leap of such audacity is odd.

The air of unease at the Democratic Convention this week was not just a result of the Clinton psychodrama. The deeper anxiety was that the party was nominating a man of many gifts but precious few accomplishments — bearing even fewer witnesses.  When John Kerry was introduced at his convention four years ago, an honor guard of a dozen mates from his Vietnam days surrounded him on the podium attesting to his character and readiness to lead.

Such personal testimonials are the norm. The roster of fellow soldiers or fellow senators who could from personal experience vouch for John McCain is rather long. At a less partisan date in the calendar, that roster might even include Democrats Russ Feingold and Edward Kennedy, with whom John McCain has worked to fashion important legislation.  Eerily missing at the Democratic Convention this year were people of stature who were seriously involved at some point in Obama's life standing up to say: I know Barack Obama. I've been with Barack Obama. We've toiled/endured together. You can trust him. I do.

Hillary Clinton could have said something like that. She and Obama had, after all, engaged in a historic, utterly compelling contest for the nomination. During her convention speech, you kept waiting for her to offer just one line of testimony: I have come to know this man, to admire this man, to see his character, his courage, his wisdom, his judgment. Whatever.  Anything.  Instead, nothing.  She of course endorsed him. But the endorsement was entirely programmatic: We're all Democrats. He's a Democrat. He believes what you believe. So we must elect him — I am currently unavailable — to get Democratic things done. God bless America.

Clinton's withholding the "I've come to know this man" was vindictive and supremely self-serving — but jarring, too, because you realize that if she didn't do it, no one else would. Not because of any inherent deficiency in Obama's character. But simply as a reflection of a young life with a biography remarkably thin by the standard of presidential candidates.

Who was there to speak about the real Barack Obama? His wife. She could tell you about Barack the father, the husband, the family man in a winning and perfectly sincere way. But that only takes you so far. It doesn't take you to the public man, the national leader.  Who is to testify to that? Hillary's husband on night three did aver that Obama is "ready to lead." However, he offered not a shred of evidence, let alone personal experience with Obama. And although he pulled it off charmingly, everyone knew that, having been suggesting precisely the opposite for months, he meant not a word of it.

Obama's vice presidential selection, Joe Biden, naturally advertised his patron's virtues, such as the fact that he had "reached across party lines to . . . keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists." But securing loose nukes is as bipartisan as motherhood and as uncontroversial as apple pie. The measure was so minimal that it passed by voice vote and received near zero media coverage.

Thought experiment. Assume John McCain had retired from politics. Would he have testified to Obama's political courage in reaching across the aisle to work with him on ethics reform, a collaboration Obama boasted about in the Saddleback debate?  "In fact," reports the Annenberg Political Fact Check, "the two worked together for barely a week, after which McCain accused Obama of 'partisan posturing' " — and launched a volcanic missive charging him with double cross.

So where are the colleagues? The buddies? The political or spiritual soul mates? His most important spiritual adviser and mentor was Jeremiah Wright. But he's out. Then there's William Ayers, with whom he served on a board. He's out. Where are the others?  The oddity of this convention is that its central figure is the ultimate self-made man, a dazzling mysterious Gatsby. The palpable apprehension is that the anointed is a stranger — a deeply engaging, elegant, brilliant stranger with whom the Democrats had a torrid affair.  Having slowly woken up, they see the ring and wonder who exactly they married last night.

© 2008 Washington Post Writers Group

-----------------------
IMPRESSIONABLE YOUTH CLINGS TO MESSAGES LEARNED YOUNG
This is the video the networks will not run.  Bill Ayers, friend of Obama, was part of a group that bombed the Capitol in the '70's, and founded Weather Underground terror group.   Does this mean Obama is like them?  Probably not.  Does it mean he was influenced by them as a youth?  Probably yes.
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m89m0pC_bpY

SO WHERE ARE WE?
Let's wait until John McCain and his improbable (yet strangely impressive in many ways) VP choice have their chance.  She absolutely undermines McCain's challenge to Obama's inexperience--although in her short career in politics, she has more concrete achievements than Obama--except for one.  He ran against and beat Hillary Clinton and gained the Democratic nomination for President.  That is a big achievement for a rookie Senator, an undistinguished State legislator and Harvard-educated Chicago Community Organizer.  Clearly, there is "something" to the guy that his lack of achievements doesn't reveal.   

John McCain, on the other hand is the "old dog." He's well known, a war hero, often disliked but almost always respected.  His new VP candidate is a "gun totin', pickup driving, no nonsense, successful local politician and mother of 5.  (Perhaps that last experience factor is the most impressive achievement of all.  Anyone who has more than 2 kids will attest to that)  Thus, let's pause and see how things develop. We'll have to wait until the hurricane passes, and the GOP convention can resume. 

At this point, 2 months before the election:
1) I still fear Obama's (and Biden's) extreme liberal philosophies, no matter how cleverly worded the explanations might be. 
2) I also concede that John McCain can't match Obama's sizzle from the podium. 
3) Obama cannot match McCain's heart, character and steadfastness in the face of real threats. 
4) I trust the McCain I know (with all his foibles) more than the Obama that makes me wonder what I don't know about him.
All I can think of is Will Rogers great quote:, "It ain't what you don't know that gets you; it's what you think you know that ain't so."

Clearly this will be an interesting choice, and there is still much more to come in this political process.

Best, John

------------------------------------------------------------