I guess the creative team over at Obama Campaign headquarters used an iPhone to come up with the new campaign slogan. Gotta be careful with that auto-correct feature. 
Be sure to follow the #forward Twitter stream, it is already hijacked and hilarious, just like so many previous failed Obama attempts at Twitter.
I’ve been trying to avoid politics and debates for the past month or so to clear m head. (I’ve found that listening to sports talk radio instead of news talk radio can be very therapeutic.) I still cruise over to Hot Air quite often to stay current, but I just can’t stomach any more debates. Besides. by the time the primary reaches me in Texas my choices are truly limited. I’m still miffed because back in 2008, thanks to Huckabee and Florida, we got screwed. Romney would have been a much better choice then, and I think he is the best choice now. Not the ideal choice, but the best choice we have remaining.
But talk radio has sucked me in again. This week we have seen lots of complaining about attacks on Romney and attacks on Gingirch. Romney’s superPAC ran ads in Iowa that shredded Gingirch over his political record. Repeat: over his political record. Topics included his $300k ethics fine levied by a Republican congress, his $1.6 million from Fannie/Freddie, and his coziness with Nancy Pelosi. All are true, by the way, and they are pertinent to the current political discussion.
On the other side of this fight, Romney supporters are screaming about attacks on Bain Capital, and capitalism in general. The focus has been on who was fired at companies that Bain took over, and how much money was made by Bain executives. All true, but none of it is pertinent, and here’s why.
Bain Capital is a private company and it exists to make a profit. That is how capitalism works. Profit and losses occur when transactions are made, and it takes two parties to complete a transaction. When companies are struggling they need to make changes in order to survive. Contracts get signed when companies are taken over, and sometimes an owner of a company brings in a firm like Bain to get help. Sometimes said owner just wants to get out and/or wants to dump the company to cash out after years of hard work. And that is fine. On the other side of the transaction is a company like Bain. It sees the potential for profit and agrees to the transaction, just like the business owner did.
Bain has had successes and failures. But every time it made changes to companies — which by the way range from process improvements, accounting corrections, business planning, to the firing of employees — the ultimate goal was to make money. The agreement between company owner and Bain was not signed with the specific goal of creating jobs. It was signed with the goal of the former owner making money, and the new owner eventually making money. Ideally this would happen by making the company more financially stable and attractive and then profiting by the sale of the new and improved entity to someone else that perceived value in the new company. In a perfect world the company would not only be saved, but it would grow and therefore need to hire more people.
Now to the attacks. From what I have seen of the Romney superPAC ads, the call out a few things:
- Gingrich being fined $300k for ethics violations by a Republican congress.
- His receipt of $1.6M from Fannie/Freddie before or while criticizing them.
- His coziness with Nancy Pelosi and legislation that was friendly to China.
These are all true. They are not distortions, at least not from what I’ve seen. (If I am wrong and they are lies, or these statements are misleading, please let me know. I want to be accurate here.) Now, with regard to the attacks on Romney, Newt has gone as far as interviewing people that were fired by Bain Capital. Were they fired? Yes. Did it make sense to do so to save the companies? Probably. but as I’ve said before, it is better to downsize than to go out of business. Avoid firing 20% to be nice and you might end up causing 100% to lose their jobs because you didn’t take the steps necessary to save the company.
Why not interview people who’s jobs were saved by Bain Capital, or people that were hired thanks to the efforts of Bain’s improvements to clients? Yes, it is true that these people were fired, but they are only part of the story. It is cherry picking of the highest order and makes zero sense coming from a supposedly capitalism-friendly Republican like Gingrich. To me it is a childish and pathetic attempt to do anything he can to win, at all costs. It is indicative of his temper and political ADD. But, if the Gingrich team wants to take this path, lets give them something to truly bitch about and release ads featuring interviews with people cheated on by Newt. They would be true, right?
I am so tired of hearing about and reading about Iowa and New Hampshire. Iowa is a great state, I’ve had some of the best corn I’ve ever tasted there. I’ve had lots of fun at the Valaire Ballroom in Des Moines. And New Hampshire is a wonderful place as well. But why should America care who voters pick in the Iowa primary? It’s not like they have a decent track record of selecting winners. 
Think about it. Here is a list of the winners from each party over the past 30 years:
Iowa Primary Winners vs. Actual Presidential Candidates
- 1976 – Ford (R, incumbent), Uncommitted (D)
- Ford was unopposed, IA Democrats disliked Carter enough to select “Generic Dem” as the winner.
- 1980 – Bush (R), Carter (D):
- Carter was unopposed, IA picked Bush over Reagan by 2%.
- 1984 – Reagan (R, incumbent), Mondale (D)
- Reagan was unopposed, IA picked the eventual Democrat candidate.
- 1988 – Dole (R), Gephardt (D)
- IA picked Dole, GHWB won. Dukakis was the Democrat nominee.
- 1992 – Bush (R, incumbent), Harkin (D)
- Bush was unopposed. Harkin won 73% if IA, Tsongas 4%, Clinton 3%.
- 1996 – Dole (R), Clinton (D)
- Clinton was unopposed, IA picked Dole over Buchanan by 3%.
- 2000 – GW Bush (R), Gore (D):
- Iowa picked GW Bush, a non-incumbent winner.
- 2004 – GW Bush (R, incumbent), Kerry (D)
- Bush was unopposed.
- 2008 – McCain (R), Obama (D)
- IA chose Huckabee.
In the past nine elections, when Iowa voters actually had to make a choice (versus selecting the incumbent) got it right once. Now let’s see how the fine folks in New Hampsha’ fared:
New Hampshire Primary Winners vs. Actual Presidential Candidates
- 1976 – Ford (R), Carter (D)
- Ford was unopposed.
- 1980 – Reagan (R) Carter (D)
- NH correctly picked Reagan.
- 1984 – Reagan (R) Hart (D)
- Reagan was unopposed.
- 1988 – GHW Bush (R) Dukakis (D)
- NH correctly picked GHW Bush.
- 1992 – GHW Bush (R) Tsongas (D)
- Bush was unopposed.
- 1996 – Dole (R) Clinton (D)
- NH picked Buchanan.
- 2000 – McCain (R) Gore (D)
- GW Bush won.
- 2004 – GW Bush (R) Kerry (D)
- GW Bush was unopposed.
- 2008 – McCain (R), Obama (D)
- NH picked the eventual candidate.
New Hampshire did better, it managed to get three of eight correct when have to choose a candidate versus selecting the incumbent.
So I ask anyone willing to listen: Why do we still care about how Iowa and New Hampshire vote in the primaries? The world has changed folks… we’ve got instant news, opinions travel at the speed of light and every candidate’s words, facial expressions and body movements are overanalyzed, critiqued and force fed to the masses. Let’s give the vote back to the people and tell the mainstream media to rethink its coverage priorities.
