McCain's Unsound Judgement

The issue of judgement has featured prominently in the current race to the White House. In the democratic primary both Senators Obama and Clinton questioned the others judgement, especially, surrounding the Iraq war. Both campaigns were trying to advance the argument that when it comes to the office of the Presidency, possessing a prescient judgement is of high importance.

The issue of Judgement cropped up regurlarly in the debate between Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain as well, once again, mainly around the issue of the Iraq war.

However, given recent developments in the race, I would propose that a different, and more revealing standard be used to assess the quality of the candidates' judgement, namely, their running mates.

I believe that Sen. McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his VP, is downright reckless and demonstrates the poorest of judgement on his part. Given Obama's choice of Biden, against the background of gender divisions within the democratic party, choosing a woman was a politically expedient thing to do. Selecting a female VP was a clever choice, especially a conservative candidate who could rally the Republican base and attract female and male Reagan democrats, although the polls show that White women are evenly split between the two candidates. Thus, theoretically, as a campaign strategy Palin could be viewed as a "good" choice to get McCain into the White House.

However, any VP selection must be based on qualities that extend and can be used beyond the campaign. This is because the VP assumes the office of president should anything happen to the President which would render him/her unable to lead. This consideration should have been paramount in McCain's mind since he is 72 years old and has fought several bouts with cancer. Why would he choose a person whose political career consists of being a Mayor of a town of 7,000 people and Gov. of Alaska for 2 years? Why would he choose a person who only obtained her passport for the first time, last year? Why would he choose a person whose foreign policy experience consists of being able to see Russia from her State?

Sarah Palin is, beyond all reasonable doubt, clearly in over her head. She is not the least bit qualified to be VP. Sarah Palin isnt qualified to be governor of any State other than Alaska, a State that has a population size that is half that of Nassau County on Long Island.

Beyond holding Sarah Palin accountable for being as clueless as she is, the ultimate blame goes to Sen. John McCain whose poor judgement is responsible for placing the VP seat within her reach.

The Debate

Ok, so I joined millions of Americans and watched the first debate attentively and with some anxiety. All in all, I think both candidates did pretty well, although both failed in some regards. I think John McCain failed in creating an impression in the viewers mind that he holds a significantly higher degree of understanding of foreign policy issues. He tried, by often stating "Obama doesnt understand" but it was a statement that remained unproven.

Obama did demonstrate that he had good knowledge and understanding of foreign policy issues, but he failed, in my opinion, to put John McCain in his place. Obama allowed McCain's claims of "Obama doesnt understand" go unchallenged. He should have, forcefully, used that statement against John McCain as well. By not doing so, he may have created the impression that he was a student unwilling and a bit intimidated to challenge his teacher.

At the end of the day, debates are not won by the submission of accurate facts, debates are won by convincing the audience that you are right, even if you have merely stated an opinion that can either not be proven or the truth of it is relative.

Thus, Obama needs to appreciate the value of propaganda in debates and utilize it to his advantage in the coming debates.

In the mean time, I cant wait to watch the debate between Sen. Biden and Gov. Palin

On the Question of Taxes

The issue of taxation has generated a lot of heated debate and exchanges between the Presidential candidates. Both claim that the tax proposals of the other will result in higher taxes for Americans. Recently, the Tax Policy Center (TPC) came out with an updated comparative analysis of Barack Obama's and John McCain's tax proposals.
Their findings were pretty interesting.

When compared to current law, McCain's plan would reduce taxes by nearly $4.2 trillion and Obama's plan would reduce taxes by $2.9 trillion over the next decade. This would be the case if the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expired in 2010 and the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) was fully effective with 2008 exemptions.

However, if we assume that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are extended, Obama's plan would result in an increase in Tax revenues of $600 billion whilst McCain's would lead to a loss of revenues of about $600 billion.

The McCain campaign is fond of accusing Obama of wanting to "raise taxes" on Americans. Even a brief google search would reveal that this claim is a partial lie.
Most Americans would experience a greater tax cut under the Obama plan than under the McCain plan. By year 2012, middle income tax-payers, which is most of America, would experience after tax increases in income by 5% or nearly $2,200 annually. Those in the top 1% income bracket would see their taxes go up by about $19,000 or 1.5% fall in after tax income.

However, under the McCain plan middle income families would only experience a 3% increase which is about $1,400 annually. In contrast to Obama's plan, McCain's plan would cut taxes for those in the top 1% by 9.5% which would raise their after tax incomes by about $125,000.

Thus, the truth is both plans would result in lower taxes for most Americans, however, most Americans would experience greater tax cuts under the Obama plan.

Poor Communication or closed ears?

Political commentators keep on repeating that Barack Obama's weakness is his inability to connect with blue-collar, working class voters. This statement is false and is cryptic language for an underlying reality which is seen as politically incorrect to mention on TV. Obama has no problem connecting with Blue-collar, working class Blacks and Hispanics.

Blue-Collar, working class workers is code for older, non-college educated Whites, especially White males. An analysis of polling data tends to paint a fairly common picture of the identity of this sub group of White voters. According to Gallop Polling data from Aug. 1 through August 28 2008, an overwhelming number of White Republicans support McCain and an overwhelming number of White Democrats support Obama. Thus, these Blue-collar, working class Whites are Independents and Reagan Democrats. Reagan Democrats crossed party lines and voted for Reagan in 1980 and 1984 and tend to vote on the basis of traditional values such as patriotism and national defense.
A point of interest is a classic study of Reagan Democrats in the Macomb county of Michigan undertaken by Stan Greenberg. This county voted 63% for John F Kennedy in 1960 and 66% for Reagan in 1984. Greenbergs study concluded that Reagan democrats were disillusioned with the Democratic party because they felt that instead of championing their interests, the Democratic party was advancing the interests of the very poor, the unemployed and African-Americans.
If this group of democrats voted republican, partly because they felt that the democratic party was preoccupied with advancing African-American issues, would they vote for an African-American candidate?

The polling data, and the profile of these Reagan democrats would suggest that the reason why Obama's message has great difficulty permeating the wall of this group is because their ears are closed to him because of his race and not because of poor communication.

If I were advising Obama's campaign I would not give up on this group but I would place greater attention, resources and energy towards the young, and first time voters. They tend to identify as Independents too. In Iowa, 22% of the democratic Caucus votes were from people under 30 years, 57% of these votes went to Obama.
As of late 2007, nearly 2.6 million Californians in the 18- to 29-year-old range were registered, representing 16.5 percent of all voters.
In Florida, 1.8 million 18- to 29-year-olds had registered by that time, representing about 15 percent of registered voters. About a quarter that state's population falls into that age bracket.


In total, over 6.0 million voters under 30 years of age voted in primaries and caucuses this year.

Its wiser and more effective to communicate to welcoming ears than to closed ones.

Ghana - Learn your Lessons.

If you had to choose between an increase in knowledge and the ability to learn lessons, which would you choose?
This is a question that Ghana as a nation must ask herself. Apparently, when it comes to the role of government in promoting a vibrant economy, Ghanaians do not place much premium on learning lessons.
Recently, there was a big public outcry against the Ghana government's decision to sell 70% of Ghana Telecom (GT) to Vodafone. Opposition parties, community activists, Non-Profit organizations and the general public all argued that GT was a strategic company, the sale of which would amount to a surrender of national sovereignty.
This is not the first time Ghanaians have opposed the sale of state owned companies (SOC's).
A few years ago the nation opposed the sale of the Ghana water & Sewerage Company. This was a company which since its inception has never been able to generate and distribute potable water to Ghanaians. In fact, Ghanaians cannot list a single SOC that has been able to perform its functions in a consistently dependable and competent manner. Ghanaians pay for the installation of pipes in their homes to receive water, but regularly experience days without running water.
The Electricity Company of Ghana is another champion of unadulterated incompetence. Power outages are so rampant that Ghanaians begin to wonder whats wrong when we experience 3 days without an outage.
Ghanaians have not learnt the valuable lesson that governments should not be in the business of running businesses. Why should governments stay out of business? Because the very nature of government is intrinsically diametrically opposed to the principle which makes for a successful business, namely, accountability. Reuven Brenner, an economist, phrased it best when he said prosperity is created when talent and capital are matched and both are held accountable.
The government's role should be confined to the creation of a conducive environment within which citizens can live, pursue business and enjoy leisure, PERIOD.
A lesson learnt, is a mistake not repeated.

KudoSurf Me!

A Good Speech. Really?

By now many of you must have heard of the highly publicized and talked about appearance of Gov. Sarah Palin at the Republican National Convention. Her ‘Pep Talk’, which is what I call it, has been hailed in the media and upgraded by the political commentators to a “Good Speech”. Some have even gone as far as to express the view that her ‘oratorical skills’ rival that of Barack Obama. Wow, I am still mentally digesting that claim. Anyway, after hearing her speech and reading about all the praise it was getting, one question kept on appearing in my mind. Did Sarah Palin really deliver a “good speech” or did she deliver a good Pep talk? Is she really oratorically gifted?

Speeches that have been deemed good, more often than not, are adjudged so because of their content and delivery. Good speeches that have stood the test of time are about a content that urges humanity to reach for greater ideals and are able to create motivation that outlives the speech itself. It’s not about applause but rather what are people applauding? Generating applause in response to sarcastic attacks on political opponents or the belittling of their personal and professional achievements does not make it a good speech.
Even if we base our assessment of the speech solely on political expediency, the content still falls short because it didn’t appeal to persons outside the Republican base. She was in effect preaching to the choir and we all know the choir is filled with sycophants (smile). From the content of good speeches we derive famous lines such as “I have a dream” (Martin Luther King Jr) or “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind” (Ghandi). What do we get from Palin? A riddle. “What is the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick” Now that’s deep. Watch out Martin, that riddle may be replacing your quote very soon.

In terms of delivery, a good speech must be perceived as coming from a genuine and sincere place within the person, not something written for you by somebody else with the intent of scoring political points. Palin comes across as stiff, condescending, intolerant and contrived. Her odd looking facial expressions didn’t help any either.
In addition, a well delivered speech doesn’t pause in solicitation of applause. A well delivered speech is interrupted by unsolicited applause. Palin’s delivery fell short in every category.

However, I am by no means inferring that she was not effective in making the crowd like her and get them fired up.
I did, after all, start off by saying she delivered a good Pep talk.