AN IGNORANT, UN-INFORMED/MIS-INFORMED COALITION SUPPORTS DEMOCRATS—WHO LEAD THEM DOWN THE PATH TO DISASTER (Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, etc.)
Youth, minorities, angry/rebellious women, and bleeding heart elitist liberals—those are the Democrats’ base.
- Watters’ world on military history: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJ2KniAZO6s, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOGlv3T9SRU
- Watters with Hillary supporters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfDOCVitkQ8&ebc=ANyPxKrWQbdkLIv7Vi20Kj2XklycxLZiYKBWnD_pPm-PGCz2a4e4W3ExgCCjuB37uAEkew6haxJpYYToK8zUvvGWMtYXtK5_KA
- Funny if it wasn’t sad. They (almost) all can vote—and millions like them https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ht7yl3pllcM
FIRST CALL OUT THE LIARS: JOE BIDEN AND CHUCK SCHUMER JOIN OBAMA AND CLINTON
They can claim they didn’t say what they did about waiting for a new president before choosing the next Supreme Court justice, but videos don’t lie and both said that it was best to wait…no excuses. Here’s what they said,
1992, Biden: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVvxGa0zhWo
2007, Schumer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2WCG2bKQjg
IN BUSINESS, IN LIFE AND IN POLITICS…THE TITLE HOLDS TRUE
Doing the right thing is hard, but what’s even harder is knowing the right thing to do. Then doing anything else is wrong. Whether it is moving a plant to another country for better costs/competitive economics, or to leave behind a difficult non-competitive union, or to simply save on taxes, companies face these decisions constantly. Families face equally difficult decisions…about children, marriages, family finances, aging parents and so much more. What to do?
Sometimes there is no right answer, just the least wrong answer to “what is the right thing to do?”
THE INESCAPABLE FACT IS THAT BARACK OBAMA HAS NOT BEEN GOOD FOR AMERICA
The evidence is so overwhelming and clear that only his staunchest ideological supporters and allies could say otherwise. Electing a new Democrat to continue his polities, directions and mistakes is a horrible prospects—but one that is very much possible. So much of America’s electorate is naive, dependent, uninformed, misinformed, or just sufficiently self-centered that they want someone to take care of them—a “big daddy” like the US government run by Democrats. There are scores of American cities that show the disastrous results of Democratic government. Detroit, Chicago and Baltimore are just three of the largest and most prominent. However, many Americans are still in Hillary’s camp…
WORST OF ALL, THE GOP LEADERSHIP IS FRAGMENTED, SPLIT AND FIGHTING
Even Congress is split by a House divided…literally…between staunch conservatives at the far right “true believers” like Ted Cruz (who is in the Senate). Paul Ryan is working hard to get some kind of compromise done, but the odds are against him. Zealots would rather lose than betray their zealous beliefs. “Cutting off their nose to spite their face” is the phrase that comes to mind.
==================
NO SIMPLE SOLUTION, BUT CONSIDER SOME POSSIBLE OUTCOMES
First from The Kiplinger Letter of March 18 [my emphasis added]
The chances of Donald Trump being the Republican nominee are growing. The best bet to stop him...a two-man race with Ted Cruz...isn’t likely.Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s recent win in his home state will keep him in the race longer. But a Trump win might require a post-primary deal or more than one ballot at the Republican convention this summer in Cleveland. So it’s not a sure thing.
To win on the first ballot, Trump needs to collect delegates at a faster clip... averaging about 60% of delegates in later primaries...than he has managed so far. Hitting that mark will be harder with just two other candidates remaining in the race to be the nominee…Cruz, a Texas senator, and Kasich...now that Marco Rubio is out. It would take a major meltdown by Trump for Cruz to win on the first ballot, and a similar collapse by Trump and Cruz to give Kasich more than a statistical shot.
If Trump gets to Cleveland without a majority, party leaders can derail him. But that would require a deal between Cruz and other Republican candidates or ex-candidates to back a consensus choice on subsequent convention ballots.
Or a surprise to emerge…House Speaker Paul Ryan of Wis., perhaps. It would also require party leaders to take big risks: That Trump’s voters, already angry at Washington, wouldn’t react to the snub by deciding to stay home. Or that Trump himself wouldn’t decide to pursue a run as a third-party challenger. Either route would make it difficult, if not impossible, to win the presidency in Nov.
But with Trump as the nominee, the party would also face an uphill climb against Hillary Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee, who polls well against Trump. If Republicans who don’t like Trump stay home in big numbers, he will lose big. The hard choice for the GOP establishment: Embrace Trump or dump him. Either path is fraught with peril and will define the party for years to come.
==================
I WROTE THIS IN ANSWER TO A QUESTION AT EXACTLY THE SAME TIME…
Kasich would have to swallow hard to take a VP spot with Trump. It's a powerful spot, and that may be tempting ...but only because a Trump loss might give Kasich a new shot of his own in 4 years... I'd say Kasich as anybody's VP candidate is a long shot. He’s not a young guy (63)!
As of now, I think Trump will get to the convention with maybe 1000+ delegates. Unless someone throws their support to him on the first ballot, it will go to a second and third ballot. It's almost a no-win situation for the GOP....Trump can boast all he wants...but he loses to so many demographics, that he probably can't win vs. Hillary, who carries them…big time. And yet, anyone else running a conventional campaign like Cruz would run almost certainly loses—except maybe Kasich.
Would pairing Trump with a more popular VP help him enough? Hard to say! That is unlikely to cure Trump’s “negatives” with so many voting blocs.
(As you can guess, I’d love to see him mend fences and pick Marco Rubio to run with him…as sort of a “protege,” but one with enough delegates to put Trump over the top. Everyone seems to be overlooking the 184 delegates held by candidates who have dropped out—169 of which “belong” to Marco Rubio. Marco knows a lot about govt., foreign affairs , and is young, articulate, and Hispanic.)
On the other hand, IF, after 3 votes Trump has not found allies to lift him to the nomination, things will get really ugly. The party isn't unified behind anyone. Cruz will have the second most delegates, but and IF several others throw their delegates to him, he will struggle to amass 1237… Cruz probably loses to Hillary too—too rigidly conservative—and not at all liked by the GOP establishment, whom he has alienated at every opportunity.
Then what? Might runners up like Kasich & Rubio join forces, leaving out both Cruz and Trump, …and then try to convince delegates to swing their way by the 4th or 5th ballot (out of desperation for ticket that can beat Hilary?) I can't understand all the convention rules but I only know that Kasich has hired an expert on contested conventions...In that event, many of the Trump (and Cruz) primary voters might rebel, and either not vote, or “waste” their votes somehow—like a write-in candidate or for a third-party candidate Trump—if he’s mad enough about being screwed by the GOP convention rules/leaders.
Sorry for the long answer…it’s a complex mess.and the only thing that is certain is that there are no easy decisions, and no clear, obvious path to follow.
THE FINAL WORD: from the Wall Street Journal editorial opinion:
“…if the nomination goes to an open convention, and if neither Mr. Cruz nor Mr. Trump can get a majority, perhaps the GOP delegates will want to consider a nominee who can beat Mrs. Clinton. Sounds crazy, we know, but isn’t the purpose of a political party to win elections?”
Or doesn’t the Republican Party care about that any more? And what Senate seats will go down to defeat if the GOP presidential candidate loses badly?
==================
HOW ABOUT THE DEMONSTRATIONS AT TRUMP RALLIES?
FROM A CORRESPONDENT:
According to H.R. 347 (signed into law by Barack Hussein Obama in February, 2012) it is ILLEGAL under CURRENT FEDERAL LAW to protest, of any type, in an area under protection by the U.S. Secret Service.
Because Donald Trump is under Secret Service Protection (as is Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders) and has been since November of 2015, it is a FEDERAL CRIME to protest at campaign rallies, and is in fact, punishable by imprisonment.
Free Speech isn’t covered at ANY Trump, Clinton, Sanders (or Cruz, Rubio, Kasich) rally because protests are considered to be "knowingly impeding or disrupting the orderly conduct of an official Federal function." Until Donald Trump’s Secret Service protection is revoked, Trump can legally kick protesters out of his rallies no matter what they do. Link to H.R. 347 As Signed by President Barack Hussein Obama: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr347/text
BUT…It’s not quite as simple as this paragraph makes it. If you really want to know, go to the link to Snopes, that gives a lot of “opinions"…some more valid than others. Bottom line: what they are doing with Trump rallies is probably a Federal offense because of the Secret Service protecting him—but don’t wait for Obama (the head of the Federal enforcement) to make too big a deal out of it—unless it continues to escalate and then if actually works for Trump (I think).
http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/restricted.asp
THE FINAL WORD: from the Wall Street Journal editorial opinion:
“…if the nomination goes to an open convention, and if neither Mr. Cruz nor Mr. Trump can get a majority, perhaps the GOP delegates will want to consider a nominee who can beat Mrs. Clinton. Sounds crazy, we know, but isn’t the purpose of a political party to win elections?”
==================
ON THE BUSINESS FRONT
FROM ANOTHER SOURCE: Large U.S. companies are increasingly governed by board members who have held their seats for a decade or more. At 24% of the biggest U.S. companies, a majority of the board has been in place for at least 10 years, our analysis found. It is a marked change from 2005, when long-term directors made up a board majority at 11% of large companies. Some investors worry that longtime board members may grow too close to the companies and management teams they are supposed to oversee, and lack the critical eye and fresh ideas that newer directors likely bring. BlackRock, State Street Global Advisors and other big money managers have begun opposing the re-election of some directors with extended tenure.
Speaking from the perspective of a director who served on two different boards for a decade or more, I can tell you that it is better for boards to be “refreshed,”—but not all at once, Certainly after the directors have served a decade or more, new people/thinking should be introduced to a board. While there is value in the historical perspective of some members (founders, legacy leaders), after more than a decade in a job—any job—and a director is just such a job, there is a great risk in applying “comfortable” (old( solutions to new problems. Boards often set age limits too. That is not a bad idea, but people age differently, so it is tricky. Some people are as sharp as ever at 75, even 80 or older, but many/most are not. Simply staying current after leaving corporate life is a challenge.
BOARD MEMBERS, SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES BECOME “ENTITLED”
This same rationale is makes term-limits more relevant than ever for members of the US Congress. There is a piece of personal ego involved in every decision—in business and in government. Board members should be term limited to no more than 12 (max.15) years, and so should members of Congress. 6-8 terms in the House and 2-3 terms in the Senate are more than enough. Members of Congress use the seniority system to claim and hold onto all the key committee chairs. This is worsens when there are no term limits. Seniority does not equate to competence either. For those young enough to want to “double-dip,”—a member of Congress who is term-limited out, and stays out for four years, could be eligible to run for a seat in the other house of Congress, provided they would not be over 75 (or 80 max) when that term ends.
MERGERS USUALLY DESTROY SHAREHOLDER VALUE—MANY SOONER RATHER THAN LATER
I once did a “subcontract-ghost-writing” job on just a couple of chapters for a book. It was a retrospective of how mergers worked out—in various industries and overall. I wasn’t supposed to know who the client was, that furnished the data. (Hint:their initials were McK). The finding were starkly conclusive. I couldn’t keep the data, but I recall the key points very clearly. Over 90% of mergers destroy shareholder value 5-10 years out. Most of them start doing so sooner than that. So why do companies merge? Usually to prop up share price (shareholder value). Ironic, that the very motive works in the short term and fails miserably in the longer term. Why do so may mergers fail?
- Overestimating how easy they are to do.Integration is a bitch. Mergers are like blending the DNA of two species. Most offspring die, or are severely handicapped.
- Overestimating the magnitude of synergies.(savings, that favorably impact earnings). Most of these are the impact of consolidation done in the first year or two and then are gone. (Just like a person losing weight on a crash diet puts the weight back on.)
- It’s fashionable among the good-ole-boys CEO club.Nothing like a juicy merger to put bounce in a CEOs step and stock price-based comp plan, as long as the CEO can cash in before the almost inevitable decline.
- We’ve done those before and we know how.Wrong. Why? Because the people, the competitive situation the industry specifics are all different in each merger. One size how-to-do-it doesn’t fit all.
A COUPLE OF BIG PROBLEMS FACING ANY CANDIDATE WHO INTENDS TO BRING WORK/JOBS BACK TO THE USA—FOR AMERICAN WORKERS TO DO
- There are fewer of them than there used to be. The workforce participation rate is headed toward 60%—an unheard of level in our recent history. Word yet many of those who left, do not want to really work at all. They want a job with good pay, short hours, easy work, lucrative benefits, and strong unions to demand those jobs. Unfortunately, that is how so many jobs went China, et. al.
- Many of those who might work have either retired (often because they lost their jobs), or claimed disability(because crooked docs make it possible), or have gone on the Obama Welfare State(and with their meager skills and poor work ethic, they can’t hold anything but entry level jobs, and those pay less than welfare in about 2/3 of the states. That’s also why the clamor for an unrealistically high minimum wage—which will drive companies to automate. (Remember bank tellers/now ATMs, check deposit by phone, travel agents/now on-line travel sites, gas pump attendants/now pump your own, and anyplace else where you use kiosks, self-checkout scanners, etc., etc.)
—SADLY for the underemployed, our Americans now have lost the ”Will to Work,”—even if jobs come back—they may not want them. Migrant-immigrants already do hard/menial jobs harvesting crops. Immigrants often work legally or illegally in many service jobs—try to find a lawn care service that has anyone who speaks English. Ditto, many of the harder construction jobs are filled by immigrants—legal or not.
—MAYBE we have so many illegal immigrants in America because we need them? We will also continue to have a shortage of doctors and nurses unless we reduce requirements (Nurse practitioner or Physician’s assistant instead of a Doctor), or import them from other countries (with the concern about how well they were trained.)
—AND yet we send the best and the brightest packing back to their native lands after getting the world’s best college educations in the USA. In return for Student Visa in certain high demand professions, we could require that they contract to spend an equal number years working in the USA, or pay back the full cost of their education, which is, in many cases, subsidized.
—OR Use the American experience and knowledge base that is “turning grey,” by creating a new, reduced work-hours, special-class of Elder-Workers, and provide some kind of economic break for them on their costs of Social Security and/or Medicare.
THE POLITICAL CAMPAIGN ISN’T THE ONLY PLACE THAT HARD CHALLENGES EXIST
Whoever follows Barack Obama will inherit a mess. If it’s Hillary Clinton, it will be more of the same-old, same old, lie, cheat, steal from those who earn money and give it to the poor underclass, to keep the subservient and voting Democrat. If it’s any of GOP contenders, the task will be Herculean. Reverse 8, 10, 12 years of bad practices (Yes, W’s last term was no gem either—he lost his veto pen, and more.) Try to set the country back on course to the American exceptionalism that is only a long word now, repairing broken alliances worldwide, instituting both domestic and foreign policies, to begin growing domestically (economic necessity) and find the right role globally (future security).
WHY ON EARTH WOULD ANY ONE WANT THAT JOB?
JOHN
PS: To show how ludicrous Hillary Clinton is as a candidate, consider these two examples:
In a news conference, Deanna Favre announced she will be the starting Quarterback for the Green Bay Packers football team next season.
Deanna asserts that she is qualified to be the starting QB because she had spent 16 years married to Brett while he played QB for the Packers - even though she has actually never played football at any level from grade school up, never ran the offense of any team, nor ever played the game.
During this period of time, she became familiar with the definition of a corner blitz, the nickel package, man-to-man coverage, so she is now completely comfortable with all the other terminology involving the Packers offense. A survey of Packers fans shows 50% of those polled supported the move.
Does this sound idiotic and unbelievable … or familiar to you? Hillary Clinton makes the same claims as to why she is qualified to be the President of the United States and 50% of Democrats polled agree.
She has never run a city, county, or state during her "career" as being Bill Clinton's wife. When told Hillary Clinton has experience because she has 8 years in the White House, my immediate thought was, "So does the pastry chef, and the person who picks up dog shit from the White House Lawn."
When it comes to running the State Department, her biggest achievement was getting a US Ambassador and 3 other Americans killed, by pretending terrorism had been defeated.....Her words still echo…”what difference does it make?”
Hillary’s accomplishments, in her own words:"My accomplishments as Secretary of State? Well, I'm glad you asked! My proudest accomplishment in which I take the most pride, mostly because of the opposition it faced early on, you know... the remnants of prior situations and mind-sets that were too narrowly focused in a manner whereby they may have overlooked the bigger picture, and we didn't do that, and I'm proud of that. Very proud. I would say that’s a major accomplishment.”
—Hillary Clinton 11 March 2014 Could someone please tell me what she just said?
---------------------------
PLEASE USE NEW EMAIL ADDRESS: [email protected]
Please DO NOT use older [email protected] and [email protected] addresses—even if you get an email from one of them. They have been UNRELIABLE, and sometimes work and at other times do not!
See my prior commentary at http://www.brennerbrief.com/author/johnmariotti/ and my latest commentary at
http://mariotti.blogs.com/my_weblog/
---------------------------
Comments