The Right Hook is Coming

Here's a great quote by Andy Kessler, a former hedg fund manager, writing in the Wall Street Journal.

"The stock market still has big hurdles to clear. You can have a jobless recovery, but you can't have a profitless recovery. Consider: Earnings are subpar, Treasury's last auction was a bust because of weak demand, the dollar is suspect, the stimulus is pork, the latest budget projects a $1.84 trillion deficit, the administration is berating investment firms and hedge funds saying "I don't stand with them," California is dead broke, health care may be nationalized, cap and trade will bump electric bills by 30% . . . Shall I go on?"

I'm inclined to believe this. Obama is a disaster.

Cheney's got his tongue

Every Democrat's favorite whipping boy Dick Cheney has been making the talk show rounds lately, defending the Bush Admin's security measures, and its limited use of torture et cetera.

Now, I'm sure VP Cheney realizes the true reason he's all over the news; it's because the networks, liberal as they are, love to throw someone up on the screen that is controversial. They're chumming the waters, throwing meat to the lions or whatever.

But Cheney doesn't seem to care. He's happy to tell everyone about the measures Bush took to keep the country safe. And why not? We were safe after all. And frankly to me the fact that Obama's suggesting prosecution of lawyers and others about the whole torture issue to me is creepy, more insane, more cloak and dagger and more threatening to freedom and democracy than anything Dick Cheney every did (not to mention how Obama's muscling hedge funds who are legally in their right and responsibility to object to the Chrysler bailout terms).

So a new prez can now prosecute the old prez? What century are we living in? It's particularly galling when the new prez is enjoying the benefits of the old prez's policies (of course, in terms of security). The shitty work has been done. Anyway, I'm sure I've said it before -- going after advisers et al of the previous administration is the mother of all can of worms.

How about this? If everyone is so pissed off, ashamed and embarrassed about our use of torture, how about we just bottle up the knowledge we gleaned from it and never use it? How about we put it aside? Would that work? Probably not. Because right now, by being attack free, we are enjoying the fruits of tough decisions, the fruits of hard work, the sacrifice and the everything else that went into making us safe.

Of course no one likes torture. But I think men and women did what they had to do at a very frantic and chaotic time. This is true of many aspects of life and government. Was the "low road" as someone has suggested? Probably. But that is war. It's more often than not "the low road."

I think you can add to war, espionage and statecraft in general to the old saying about "the less you know about how laws and sausages are made the better."

I'll keep my head in the sand on this one, thanks!

The lowest common demagoguery

Viva Javert!

This latest tax proposal of "closing loopholes" and gutting US corporations even more than they are is another red flag highlighting why Obama's leadership is shallow, hollow and directionless.

Why is everything about punishment? Judging by his actions this guy is NOT muslim, he's definitely catholic -- of the pre-Vatican II stripe. Punish, punish, punish, punish! Repent for your sins or rot in hell!

So here he's going after corporations "shipping jobs overseas" and not paying enough tax. Why doesn't he instead create an environment where companies wouldn't be chased out of the country? Why not give them a break back here so they come back (and likely create jobs)? Because he's a tried and true agitator. So instead of Fletcher giving up the chase in Outlaw Josey Wales, we get Javert maniacally going after Jean Valjean.

Punishment! He's going the Javert route because it's easier to go low when you're a demagogue. Everyone is Erin Brokovich nowadays and he's mining that vein to the max. Raise the hackles of the population to gain your desired ends. Screw corporations! Screw banks! (Well, they kinda deserve it.) Screw the Netherlands those low-tax scum! Screw everybody! (But embrace Putin, Iran, and Chavez!!)

I bet Obama makes a lousy spouse. If Michelle stopped loving him and then left him, would he yell at her and penalize her until she changed her mind or would he try to be a better guy and create a better environment at home? From what I can see, it's the former. Probably a stalker ta boot.

The death of Republicans vastly exaggerated

It is now pretty much accepted wisdom that with Obama firmly ensconsed in the WH, Democrats firmly (if not almost entirely) in control of Congress, that the Republican party is all but dead. I think I heard Token Times Republican David Brooks say that the GOP is gone for the next 3 elections. He wasn't clear if he meant presidential elections or mid-term elections, so according to the TTR, it'll be 6-12 years, give or take, before we see hide or hair.

Now, certainly Republicans are on the ropes. And for the most part have rolled over amid the Obama onslaught. Playing dead? Helpless? Regrouping? In-fighting? All of these I guess and more. The problem is that for the moment, and for the foreseeable future, the playing field is utterly uneven; tipping sharply in the favor of Obama. I don't say tipping in favor of Democrats because it just isn't the case. It's Obama.

Obama and the Democrats are like Michael Jordan and the Bulls. Sure, Phil Jackson is a good coach, he's got 6 rings without MJ. But really, in his Bulls days, was he anything without Jordan? The answer is no. Likewise with the Democrats. Cheese Schumer, Reid and Pelosi are politically astute senators. But the Dems and Schumer et al are nowhere without Obama.

This is probably why Republicans should zero in the other side of the aisle instead of attacking Obama. You attack Obama and you look like you're being obtuse, obstructionist, whiney and not with the program. So attack Obama at your peril. The guy's an evil genius. A huckster. Perhaps one of the few pols out there that can piss on your leg and tell you it's raining and you'd believe him. He's a disaster. But I digress. Go after the Democrats. They're the weak spot in the Obama arsenal.

So we have the Democrats full of themselves and Republicans licking their wounds and growling at each other and to ghosts. They are pathetic and one would hope that they stand up soon and start standing for something other than what they think: pure conservatism. It doesn't work. The big tent that everyone keeps talking about is the righ way to go. And those who leave and go to the Dems? Let them. I've never understood that form of loyalty and I never will. It's like leaving your favorite baseball team. So you don't like the current state the GOP? The look and tenor? The stay around the affect change.

In any case, Obama has a lot on his plate. He's taken on a lot of projects. Some of them will take a few years to pan out, flame out, crash burn or soar to extrordinary heights. I'm betting that he scores about a 30% of what he attempts. However, given his oratorical skill and that people just like him for some reason, that 30% could bump up to about 60%, just by sheer spinning skill (and the opaqueness of success in some areas). But the thing is, there's nothing opaque about jobs. They're either there or they're not. If in 6, 8, 10 months there is no material improvement in the job picture, his glimmer made fade a bit.

Leadership: The Emporer Convinces Us He Has Clothes Even Though He's Buck Naked

As everyone knows, leadership is tough to define. And often, like a recession, you don't know you're in the presence of good leadership until well after the fact.

They say Obama is good leader and so far no one's really bothered to examine whether he is or isn't. Everyone seems to just feel that he is, which then makes it true. And there's no other view out there in terms of popular media. That's because the media uses the "if smells like it, then it is it" style of examination.

We're hearing that Obama's already one of the great presidents (curiously, people treat him as the only other president we've ever had besides George W. Bush. George is bad and has been fucking up our program for the past 224 years. But now we have Obama, long sigh; he represents all that is right and righteous -- cue Green Aliens from Toy Story).

"Nirvana is coming, the mystic portal awaits"

But if you list the pros and cons, or the qualities that make a leader a good one along with the attributes that would undermine such leadership, I think it's a different story. It reveals a bit better what kind of leader Obama is. It also shows that his type of leadership is unsustainable in our kind of world -- that being a world with the power of the Internet, where information courses instantly, a world of micro-trends, trend bursts, viral trends, long-term background trends, a world where millions of stakeholders have a voice where they didn't before and can find like-minded stakeholders instantly; in other words a mercurial world where policies, ideas and fashions all collide, and not always to the intended or desired ends; it's the regular world but at a much higher, more efficient speed.

Of course, I could be wrong and that even if he is the worst president ever, he'll never be thought of as bad because people want him to succeed, unlike George Bush, whom many people did not want to succeed (even if it meant bad things for them). The other factor, or trump cards that Obama possesses is his likability and eloquence. It's said that money talks and bullshit walks. Well, it doesn't apply to Obama.

So below we have all the things that you need to have for leadership and all the things that can undermine it:

Qualities needed for Leadership (pros):

Likability

Appearing confident

Speak well

Good looks

High intelligence

Street intelligence

A broad view

Rallies disparate partners

Works hard

Calculates

Has the "inner asshole" -- i.e., thick skin, doesn't mind making tough decisions

Masks lies -- makes flip-flops invisible

Qualities that can torpedo leadership; make it unsustainable (cons)

Lying too much

Breaking your word too much

Pandering too much

Exploiting populist divisions too much

Rationalizing too much

Taking on too much

Being disorganized

A touch of evil (calculating in a bad way)

Speaking before facts are known

Breeds too many unintended consequences

Has inner rage

Too conceited (Bush, too)

A chip on shoulder (as did Bush)

Vindictive

Socialist tendencies

A note on some of the "too much" qualities. These could actually be put in the pro list, because a leader can use them to good effect if utilized effectively. In fact, you could say that you need them to succeed (they could be a sub-category of the "Inner Asshole"). But they're good only in small doses. "Too much" and the cracks can begin to show. "Too much" and it puts you over the top.

The only thing that can overcome the "too much" traits is, as mentioned above, Obama's eloquence. It's his "Get out of Jail Free" card. Frustratingly, people will follow him to hell because he'll pave the way with good intonation. Those who can see through it, see behind the curtain, as it were, will spend the next four years pulling their hair out, stand accused of jealosy or partisanship and being contrarian, etc.