Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (45658)	11/23/2008 6:08:30 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

Obama Will Thrive Among Competing Power Centers: Commentary by Albert R. Hunt Nov. 24 (Bloomberg) -- Barack Obama will surround his presidency with powerful men and women. The models of Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan are instructive. So is that of George W. Bush. The current president, eight years ago, selected the formidable Colin Powell as his secretary of State, and the almost-as-formidable Donald Rumsfeld as his Defense secretary. They produced a team of rivals that thoughtlessly, and with little serious debate, started a war and devastated America’s standing in the world. The lesson is not to avoid strong-minded people with different views; it is to appreciate that this works only with a strong-minded, temperamentally secure president who thrives on intellectual combat. The inspiration for Obama is Doris Kearns Goodwin’s “Team of Rivals,” a riveting and much-acclaimed account of how Lincoln recruited for his Cabinet former political opponents who initially thought themselves superior to the man who went on to become America’s greatest president. Actually it’s more a team of heavyweights than of rivals. The president-elect already has assembled an unusually strong White House staff and now it appears it will be even more powerful with former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers on economics and former Marine Corps Commandant James Jones on national security. The Cabinet will be as strong with Hillary Clinton at State, Robert Gates perhaps being retained at Defense, and New York Federal Reserve President Timothy Geithner being tapped as Treasury secretary. Geithner may look like a teenager, but that belies his expertise and the respect he commands in global financial circles. With the financial crisis, Summers’s role at the White House may be Kissingerian in scope. Franklin Roosevelt would love this assemblage. ‘Know Who He Is’ This will at times make governance harder; choosing between strong points of view is tough. It is also a challenge. “My definition of a strong president,” says Howard Baker, who as a U.S. senator served with five presidents and later was Reagan’s chief of staff, “is he must know who he is, what he believes, and not be afraid of strong people or to disagree with them.” Conversations with three men who intimately understand the American presidency -- Baker, presidential historian Michael Beschloss and Harry McPherson, former counsel to Lyndon Johnson -- produce a consensus: Experience shows that competing or complementary power centers are essential to a successful presidency. It also shows it will be a task to make it work. “It’s very tough,” says Beschloss. “It starts off with high policy and then often gets down to personal stuff. A president has to be very comfortable with smart people arguing with one another.” No Automatic Success They all note situations, including in Bush’s presidency, where the healthy clash of ideas and people didn’t materialize. In the first two years of Bill Clinton’s administration, the foreign policy team was so ill-suited for the tasks that coherent debate was rare. McPherson recently reread the notes of Johnson’s internal deliberations over going to war in Vietnam. There was a clash of ideas. The problem was the vocal dissenter, George Ball, was so outnumbered that a balanced contest never transpired. The successful presidencies, however, underscore the value. Goodwin’s “Team of Rivals” chronicles the contribution Secretary of State William Seward made to the Lincoln years and how close the two men became. Seward, who barely lost the nomination fight to Lincoln in 1860, was a senator from New York when tapped as the nation’s chief diplomat. Relishing Rivalries No president relished such strong rivalries as much as Roosevelt: Interior Secretary Harold Ickes against Agriculture Secretary Henry Wallace; isolationists against internationalists; and battles among most of his major economic advisers, especially early in his first term, when experimentation was the order of the day. “FDR actually enjoyed conflict,” notes Beschloss. “He worried if one side got too powerful, and liked to keep both off balance. He also felt it kept his administration alive with ideas.” Temperamentally, Reagan lacked Roosevelt’s manipulative magic, yet he benefited from internal conflict between Secretary of State George Shultz and Defense chief Caspar Weinberger on how to deal with the Soviet Union. “Reagan really valued the pressure brought by Shultz and Weinberger’s disagreements,” says Baker. The result was a hard line, which played a role in the eventual Soviet collapse, and an important accommodation at the end. Republicans Welcome The Obama Cabinet will be full of heavy hitters. In some administrations, a White House staff with such clout would dominate. Obama, however, also seems intent on assembling a Cabinet that wouldn’t allow that. Choosing Tom Daschle, a former Senate majority leader with lots of knowledge and connections, suggests Obama won’t make the mistake of trying to craft a health-care overhaul from the White House. Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano will be a force at Homeland Security. And a few Obama insiders insist there will be more than a token Republican in his government; they will be sprinkled throughout the agencies. Baker, Beschloss and McPherson all praise the idea of Clinton as secretary of State, while recognizing the perils. “She’s very talented,” says McPherson. “The issue is whether it’s worth the struggles that almost invariably surround Bill Clinton.” Tension With Bill The negotiations over what the former president would “give up” so his wife can be the top diplomat are unseemly. Tension with her husband comes with the territory. There will be Obama loyalists in the White House suspicious of Hillary Clinton’s motives; if given a free hand to staff the State Department, the danger is she’ll enlist too many sycophants who don’t care about the president. Then again there will be a powerful White House staff and most likely an influential Defense chief to provide a check. (Albert R. Hunt is the executive editor for Washington at Bloomberg News. The opinions expressed are his own.) To contact the writer of this column: Albert R. Hunt in Washington at ahunt1@bloomberg.net Last Updated: November 23, 2008 13:19 EST

To: RetiredNow who wrote (45658)	11/24/2008 1:28:23 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

Ford Scion Looks Beyond Bailout to a Green Agenda By BILL VLASIC Published: November 23, 2008 DEARBORN, Mich. — As the Detroit auto companies contend with their worst financial crisis in decades, the most famous American auto executive has stayed largely out of sight. But William C. Ford Jr., the executive chairman and scion of the founding family of the Ford Motor Company, has been preparing for a bigger role in the industry’s plan for survival. While General Motors and Chrysler plead to Congress for a bailout, Mr. Ford has reached out to President-elect Barack Obama in hopes that his company can benefit from the administration’s longer-term strategies for the auto industry. Mr. Ford has been working behind the scenes, meeting one-on-one with Mr. Obama in August, conferring with his senior economic advisers, and teaming up with Gov. Jennifer Granholm of Michigan to push a vision of a leaner, greener auto industry. With Detroit on the brink of disaster, the great-grandson of Henry Ford could play a critical role in how the Obama administration decides to assist the companies financially and shape broader energy policies. “One of the things that I feel very encouraged about is the president-elect and where he’d like to take this country in terms of energy, and I completely buy into his vision,” Mr. Ford said in an interview, his first since the Big Three approached Washington lawmakers about a rescue plan. He can afford to take a longer view because Ford, unlike G.M. and Chrysler, does not need an immediate infusion of government aid to stay in business. While Ford’s chief executive, Alan R. Mulally, joined his counterparts from G.M. and Chrysler in testifying before Congress last week, Ford is not asking for an immediate bailout from Washington for now. The company has enough cash on hand — $18.9 billion, as well as a $10.7 billion line of credit with private lenders — that will keep it running through 2009 without cutting development of its next generation of more fuel-efficient cars. While Ford cannot continue to burn cash indefinitely, it is also not on the verge of bankruptcy like G.M. and Chrysler. And the health of the company presents a unique opportunity for Mr. Ford, 51, who has been chairman of the company since 1999 and served five years as its chief executive. “We have a plan that is high-tech, product-driven, which is a fuel economy plan,” he said. “And we have kept that plan in place under these tough conditions.” In August, Mr. Ford shared those plans with Mr. Obama, then candidate for president, when he was in Lansing, Mich., for a speech on energy policy. “We talked about the electrification of our industry and other fuel-economy issues,” Mr. Ford said. “He’s a great listener and he asked all the right questions.” Mr. Ford said they focused on a few specific, industrywide issues. One was government help to put more electric cars on the road. “One of the things we need to sort out as a country is batteries,” Mr. Ford said. “We really don’t want to trade one foreign dependency, oil, for another foreign dependency, batteries.” The main producers of batteries are Asian manufacturers. He does not profess to have Mr. Obama’s ear yet on the how to save Detroit. But Mr. Ford is keeping close contact through Governor Granholm, a member of the president-elect’s economic advisory team. “I think he is a key player,” she said of Mr. Ford. “He has tremendous credibility with respect to the serious issues related to renewable energy and energy security for this nation.” Mr. Ford has been Detroit’s most vocal environmentalist since becoming the first family member to run Ford since his uncle, Henry Ford II. Even when Ford was living off profits from its big sport utility vehicles, he was pushing to take the company in a greener direction. Ford was the first automaker to bring to market a hybrid version of an S.U.V., the Ford Escape, and it is introducing a new line of Ecoboost engines next year that will cut fuel consumption by up to 20 percent. The Ford family controls the automaker by virtue of its 70.85 million shares of Class B stock, which carry 40 percent voting rights for the entire company. But the family’s wealth has taken a drastic hit as losses have mounted at Ford and its stock price has plunged. The family’s Class B shares were worth $101 million at Friday’s closing price of $1.43 a share, down 81 percent from a year ago when the shares had a value of $532 million. Mr. Ford also owns 5.2 million shares individually, which have dropped in value to $7.4 million from $39 million. “The family clearly has taken an enormous financial beating,” Mr. Ford said. “But the family still is here and standing behind the company.” The company is in better shape than G.M. and Chrysler, but just barely. Ford has lost $24 billion since 2006, and it reduced its cash cushion by $7.9 billion in the third quarter this year. Two years ago, Ford was seen as the riskiest bet in the industry to survive when it mortgaged nearly all its assets, even its blue Ford oval trademark, to secure a huge line of credit. Now, with the collapse of the credit market, G.M. and Chrysler cannot borrow money on their assets and could face insolvency by the end of the year without federal assistance. Mr. Ford said his company was interested in being able to access government loans only if the economy continues to deteriorate. “We’re trying very hard not to need it,” he said. “Our plan is to have our own liquidity and get through without it.” Ford has already undergone an extensive revamping at the direction of Mr. Mulally, who succeeded Mr. Ford as the automaker’s chief executive in 2006. Since then, the company has cut 40,000 jobs, sold off three of its brands and begun an effort to transform its truck-heavy vehicle fleet with an influx of smaller, more fuel-efficient cars. Mr. Ford remained in Detroit last week as Mr. Mulally endured two days of harsh criticism by lawmakers over Detroit’s financial plight, along with G.M.’s chairman, Rick Wagoner, and Chrysler’s chairman, Robert L. Nardelli. In the interview, Mr. Ford said that some of the skepticism from Congress about the industry’s future was justified. “I completely understand the frustration that Americans feel and it came out loud and clear this week,” he said. “I don’t think we told our story terribly well.” After 15 years of relying on pickup trucks and S.U.V.’s for profit, Ford is putting the bulk of its capital investment into smaller cars. Much of the debate in Washington has centered on the best source of government money for an emergency loan program for Detroit. One is a $25 billion low-interest loan program already passed by Congress that provides money specifically for improvements in fuel efficiency. Ford has applied for $7 billion of those loans, which are administered by the Department of Energy. Mr. Ford expects that any aid from the Obama administration in the future will be tied to improvements in fuel economy. “We just submitted our application to the D.O.E. and what’s interesting is in the next two years, 75 percent of our vehicles will qualify for their definition of advanced vehicle technology,” he said. Mr. Ford said he was committed to helping Mr. Obama end America’s dependence on foreign oil whether Detroit gets a bailout before the end of the year or not. “It’s all about fuel economy and energy independence,” he said. “I passionately believe that Ford can and should be part of that solution.” nytimes.com

To: RetiredNow who wrote (45658)	11/24/2008 10:57:37 AM
From: manalagi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 149317

The tribunal in the Hague will not be the one who initiates the charges, but some members of Iraqi families who suffered from the invasion might file the complaints. Let's face it, the International Tribunal was created so that NO country in the world, however mighty it is, can just use its military power to invade other sovereign country and get away with that. Otherwise, the International Court will be as useless as a dick on a statue. Due to the power that our country has, indictment will only occur when the person in charge of the crime is out of office. Just look back at Slobodan Milosevic's crimes against humanity. The question is what will Obama do if that indictment happens while he is in office. Even if Obama protects the perpetrator of Iraqi unlawful war, those who are indicted will not be able to travel overseas where they can be extradited.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (45658)	11/24/2008 11:17:09 AM
From: manalagi	2 Recommendations Respond to of 149317

Read especially about the fate of Dick Cheney: thedailybanter.com 10 Republicans Who Should Go Away By Ben Cohen With a new political era looming, veterans of the old political arena will scramble to redefine themselves in order to make a living. Politicians, media commentators and analysts may be ill equipped to deal with the changing electorate, increased power of the blogosphere and massive discontent with the status quo. Who will survive in the modern epoch? Here are 10 who should really think about calling it quits: 1. William Kristol There's no need to go on about how wrong Bill Kristol has been on just about everything, and what a spineless shrimp of a man he is. Just read this quote from an article he penned on the eve before the war in Iraq: We are tempted to comment, in these last days before the war, on the U.N., and the French, and the Democrats. But the war itself will clarify who was right and who was wrong about weapons of mass destruction. It will reveal the aspirations of the people of Iraq, and expose the truth about Saddam's regime. It will produce whatever effects it will produce on neighboring countries and on the broader war on terror. We would note now that even the threat of war against Saddam seems to be encouraging stirrings toward political reform in Iran and Saudi Arabia, and a measure of cooperation in the war against al Qaeda from other governments in the region. It turns out it really is better to be respected and feared than to be thought to share, with exquisite sensitivity, other people's pain. History and reality are about to weigh in, and we are inclined simply to let them render their verdicts. Case closed. 2. Sarah Palin Former Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin is the poster child of vacuous Republican imagery - hollow, loud and crass with no discernable talents other than an ability to attract stupid middle American house wives. Palin exploded onto the scene as John McCain's campaign started to wither, only for the 'Hockey Mom' to be exposed as a know nothing fraud. Claiming that Russia's visibility to Alaskans gave her foreign policy credentials and using sentences that even 'Dubya' would cringe at sealed her fate, plummeting McCain's campaign into the unelectable abyss. Unfortunately, Palin is doing the rounds on the media circuit, pumping her stardom for all its worth and priming herself for a run in 2012. The last thing America needs is another Bush style Republican, and Palin would represent that, but much, much worse. 3. Michelle Malkin The Asian, female version of Bill O'Reilly, Malkin makes a living spouting hatred and idiocy to Fox News viewers. Malkin wrote a book called: In Defense of Internment: The Case for 'Racial Profiling' in World War II and the War on Terror. The book essentially defends the internment of Japanese Americans during World War Two and argues for more racial profiling of Arabs, which would be a bit like a Jew making the case for the holocaust in the name of German unity (OK, maybe not, but you get the point). Malkin's offensive views have earned her a spot on Andrew Sullivan's blog, where people can win 'Malkin Awards' for bigotry, prejudice or downright meanness. Malkin's crusade against liberals, gays and minorities means she will have a spot on Fox for the foreseeable future. As Matt Taibbi writes: I’ll say this about Michelle Malkin: she has a future in this business. I see her replacing Ann Coulter in that right-wing dipshit hierarchy. The last few times I’ve seen Coulter on TV, I haven’t been able to take my eyes off her Adam’s apple. By 2012 she’s going to be doing ping-pong ball acts at drag clubs in Reno. Malkin, though, she’s hardworking, dumb, and shameless, just like Sarah Palin, who I think has a big future four years from now. So get ready for more of this stuff. It’s only just started and they’ve got four long years of target practice coming. 4. Dick Morris A former Clinton political consultant turned Fox News 'Analyst', Morris made his living selling political imagery to ailing politicians, using his skills in lying, cheating and distortion to their maximum capacity. Morris backed John McCain for President, and was seen salivating over Sarah Palin on a regular basis, unable to disguise his creepy obsession with the 44 year old hot mom of many. Morris does his best to cozy up to his corporate pay masters in the Murdoch empire, and regularly publishes idiotic books like 'Condi vs Hillary- The next great Presidential race' (great call Dick). Thankfully, Dinosaurs like Morris are becoming irrelevant in the new political era, mostly because his lies are so egregious they are damaging to his party. While defending Morris from his jeering audience, John Stewart deftly put it "In fairness, Dick Morris is a lying sack of Shit". 5. Dick Cheney The 'Dark Prince' of the Republican party, Cheney's obsession with American military prowess and fanatical dedication to the oil industry has made him the focal point of most liberal's rage. Cheney exists to service the needs of the rich and powerful, and is unafraid to put other people's lives at risk to ensure corporate profits and American hegemony. Cheney has always remained largely behind the scenes due to a distinct lack of personality and aura of extreme evil, but wields his influence expertly with his nuanced understanding of the dark arts of politics. Cheney is the epitome of a political hack, a gutless grey blob of a man with a record of detached violence and personal greed. We won't see much of him after next January, and hopefully someone will have the decency to arrest him should he venture out of the United States. 6. Mitt Romney Mitt Romney's speech at the Republican Convention this year said it all about the Mormon multi millionaire. Having lost the primary to John McCain (despite spending $47 million dollars of his own money) Romney tried to suck up to the base and pitch himself for 2012 with one of the worst speeches in history. Incredibly, Romney tried to claim liberals were responsible for the awful mess his party made, saying Washington was 'too liberal', and that "We need change all right. Change from a liberal Washington to a conservative Washington". Here's the transcript of the awful debacle (try not to laugh too hard). Romney clearly wants to run in 2012, but he had better start believing his own bullshit before he tries to sell it again. 7. Alan Greenspan Former head of the Federal Reserve, 'St Alan' presided over the whole scale deregulation of the financial industry, and has his grubby paws all over the tragic state of the economy. Greenspan's pathetic appearance at a congressional hearing in 2008 had him basically admit his philosophy was wrong: I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interest of organisations, specifically banks, is such that they were best capable of protecting shareholders and equity in the firms ... I discovered a flaw in the model that I perceived is the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works. Very good of him to admit, but try telling that to the millions of people losing their jobs and homes. Thankfully, Greenspan is retired so won't be able to do any more damage. 8. Bill O'Reilly Bill O'Reilly isn't a hack, or even a Republican. He is just an asshole. His show continues to dominate the airwaves where he essentially shouts at liberals and ignores his guests. God knows why he is successful, but I suspect it is partially because of people's obsession with train wrecks. Liberals enrage O'Reilly to the point where he could easily suffer a heart attack or physically assault one of them on his show. O'Reilly is no fool, just blinded by emotional retardation and a complex about his middle class upbringing (O'Reilly's entire persona is that of a working man - something not supported by facts). He shows no sign of slowing down, but as a part of the minority in the near future, his voice won't be anywhere near as important. 9. Sean Hannity Fox News presenter Sean Hannity is the quintessential hack - no brain, just a vacant space in his head for GOP talking points. Hannity is a smooth presenter, articulate and emotive, the perfect frontman for the bankrupt ideology he is paid to promote. Hannity has gone from dreadful to absolutely nauseating since Palin ignited his loins, gushing over the re emergence of brainless conservatism and filling his head with dreams of a conservative comeback in 2012. The visible anguish Hannity now shows after the Democratic victory is a joy to watch, clearly karmic pay back for the years of gloating over the sorry state of Democrats. Hannity was sick to his stomach after Obama was elected, and may develop some serious ulcers over the next four years. However, luckily for him, he may get treatment for free if Obama institutes universal health care. 10.George Bush I've saved the best for last. The 'Decider' will go down as the worst President in the history of the United States, and as Chris Rock put it "Bush is not just the worst ever president of the USA, he’s the worst ever president, period. Of anything." It's hard to top the hyperbole commentators have used in describing just how bad Bush really was, because there aren't really words to do it justice. Bush has presided over monumental fuck up after monumental fuck up, groping his way through the president with the finesse of a 800lb gorilla. I tried to come up with a list of accomplishments he has achieved, and came up with the following: 1. He has increased financial support to Africa to alleviate AIDs and poverty. 2. ............ Uh, that's it. He has presided over two disastrous wars, an increase in poverty at home, an increase in wealth inequality, an increase in the number of people without health care, a crisis in public education, the break down of national infrastructure, the literal drowning of a city, the use of torture as official policy, the biggest financial crisis in 80 years, and the irreversible decline of America's prestige abroad. Here is something to think about. Every ex President (aside from Ronald Reagan who had alzheimers) has a role to play in public life after office. They give advice, do lecture tours, write books, sit on boards of huge companies and head non-profit organizations. How many people do you think will be itching to receive advice from W? How many companies would have him on their board? Who would buy his autobiography? Who would pay to hear him speak? No one. And that pretty much sums it up.