SarahPAC is launched!

Sarah Palin launched her political action committee (PAC). You can check it out at sarahpac.com.

The PAC seems primarily oriented around the issue of energy independence which has broad bipartisan support. What doesn't generally have broad bipartisan support is the way to get to energy indpenedence. You've got the "drill, baby, drill" crowd on one end and the "Wind is everything" clean energy crowd on the other end. Neither group is entirely right. But we know where Palin will likely land, and she is likely to characteristically make an issue that should theoretically be a bipartisan rallying cry into a new wedge issue.

But getting back to the website, the scant information on the PAC's recently uploaded web page is a perfect analog to the real Sarah Palin. There are thin allusions to reform, innnovation, and bipartistanship, but these token aspirational statements quickly give way to comments about a GOP party revival. She would likely have been better served by positioning herself as an relatively objective energy independence expert. That, however, is not her brand; and it's therefore, not surprising that the true orientation of the PAC is to serve as a rallying point for hyper partisan members of the extreme right. Palin is astutely filling a much needed void. In the long meanderings in the desert of exile from power, the left sought solace in an oasis called MoveOn.org. Similarly, there is likely a need being filled by structures like SarahPAC.

The PAC is also obviously a way for Palin to keep her name front and center in the minds of her GOP constituents, develop a grass roots fund raising infrastructure (a la Obama), and enable her to raise money to campaign on behalf of GOP candidates so that she can collect favors for a future run for the presidency or senate. It's an astute politcal move, but positioning will be important if this is a prelude to a run for the presidency in 2012. There will be a natural pull toward catering to her far right constituency. This move will only reinforce her brand and move her away from current moderate mood of the country. That mood, of course, could change and veer right over the next 4 years, but that would be a calculated gamble.

Enough of the polity feel that there is enough empirical evidence to suggest that hyper-partisan, intellectually incurious, and less than wordly leaders are not a recipe for success. To that end, Palin is probably perceived to be closer to a Bush analog versus McCain who actually had a fighting chance (if any Republican did) in this last election. The GOP may feel that moving toward the traditional base is the right answer in the wake of a defeat of a moderate Republican like McCain. Time will tell if that's the right calculation. If it is, then Palin's your girl.

Don't expect to find much on the website right now. Just like Palin, there's not much there. She needs to avoid a crach course in economics and foreign policy next time around. She'd be wise to start that education process now by surrounding herself with smart people and having smart conversations about difficult issues. She'll sound well versed, thoughtful, and intelligent the next time around not because of media training but because of true deep exposure to the issues.

And if she's looking for reading material advice...I'd suggest The Economist. Sphere: Related Content

Blog Surfing Recommendations - Hang 10!

Here are just a few reading recommendations based on my surfing of the web. There are plenty more, and I'll be sure to share them as I come across them:

Productivity: www.lifehacker.com

Foreign Affairs: www.atimes.com - this is the Asia Times out of singapore and offers a lot of interesting perspectives that you just don't get in the US

Housing Market/Crash: http://patrick.net/wp/

You can also check out the general housing commentary at patrick.net

Economics: http://www.rgemonitor.com/

You have to register to get all the good stuff on this one, but it's worth it. The guy who is a lead contributor (Noriel Roubini) is the man who predicted a lot of the current meltdown.

The economist has a good blog too at:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/

The main issue with this blog is that the information is less actionable as it's a lot of general musings.

I may not always agree with this one, but it sure gets you to think:

http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/

In a similar vein, I don't often agree with these guys; but they have very interesting perspectives that are well through through on foreign policy:

http://www.heritage.org/research/ Sphere: Related Content

When Indignation Loses Credibility

In her blog post today (1/27/2009) titled "The Era of Not Getting It: The Mary Antoinettes of the Meltdown" , Ariana Huffington goes through the litany of outrages exacted on shareholders and the general public by arrogant Wall Street CEOs. But like the rest of the media, the trivial injustices are highlighted and the real big ones seem to get overlooked to the detriment of us all. Often, it’s worse, in that people get outraged over either the minor infraction to the exclusion of the really big ones, or they get fired up over incomplete information. Missing the big picture for titillating trivialities does a disservice to the information consuming polity. Those with a broad view need to highlight the critical themes and not just the grabbers.

The most notable and highly publicized example of Wall Street excess to grab headlines as of late is the $1.2M office remodeling of former Merril Lynch CEO John Thain whose firm was bought by Bank of America just a few months ago. Thain went on CNBC to indicate that the interior design effort was approved in a "different economic environment" over 1 year ago. The environment may not have been so dire 12 months ago, but the office remodeling occurred just before Thain laid off thousands as profitability on Wall Street eroded. The office flap is the least offensive thing Thain has likely done in the recent past. Approving $4 billion in bonuses just prior to his firm's acquisition by Bank of America and essentially blackmailing both the government and B of A into a hasty marriage are probably more egregious and worthy of review. The office flap just is media juicy but ultimately not as important as the less than honorable actions of the past few weeks. Thain's credibility is shot, and he's likely to be finished on the Street. The real story here is the pure slime of Thain’s actions that make officegate look like submitting one too many taxi receipts in your expense report. His more monumental transgressions include:

1. thinking he deserved a massive $83M bonus in light of his firms horrible performance,

2. misrepresenting or just plain not knowing what was going on when he did due diligence with Bank of America CEO Kenneth Lewis,

3. giving himself and his boys massive bonuses on the way out on the government’s dime, and

4. potentially, screwing us all by being an important economic advisor in John McCain’s administration had the GOP contender won.

Now blaming Thain for all of Merril Lynch’s woes is intellectually dishonest. Thain, after all, became CEO only about a year ago. Much of the firms problems were already in play by then. But again, the real transgressions are a lot more shocking than his office remodeling.

Other headline grabbing issues are equally misleading. Citibank’s purchase of a new $50M corporate jet should be the least of the public’s worries. Within a few months, New York went from being the center of global high finance to being a relative backwater. In fact, Washington is likely now the center of finance in the US so New York is not even relevant on a national level. The real action is taking place in Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Mumbai, and Shanghai. Citibank executives will likely be shuttling with begging bowls in hand to these various places who are struggling with their own issues. The real story with Citibank is not what fancy gadgetry its executives are buying. The real story with Citi is that it is a perfect reflection of what’s happening in America. Citi used to be the biggest bank in the world – top of the heap, king of the hill. But Citi made the poor decision of over investing in us…the US. Citi is heavily involved in the US consumer credit and housing market. As our inability to pay our obligations grows, so do Citi’s woes. It’s an ugly and uncomfortable truth that isn’t sexy and isn’t as enraging as crazy executives spending money on drunken sprees. The plane is probably the one tool that Citi executives will need to stay afloat and avoid taking on more tax payer dollars. They’ll be out panhandling in the Middle East…but that well has likely run dry.

Finally, Huffington (among others) mentions Wells Fargo’s increased lobbying efforts after having taken $25 billion from the government. This flap is another example of incomplete information fueling misplaced outrage. Wells Fargo, turns out, didn’t want the government’s money. In fact, the chairman of Wells Faro has said to have thrown a fit when Treasury forced him to take the money as part of a broad based capital infusion effort to partially nationalize all of the major “too-big-to-fail” banks. So, it’s not surprising that Wells would like to convince people in Congress to leave it alone. As one of the better managed banks that avoided a lot of the problems, Wells actually has some right to be indignant that it’s less well managed competitors are getting a lifeline and it’s not able to more effectively reap the rewards of its prudent management by way of weakened competitors. In fact, the big story here is the bait-and-switch of the TARP (troubled asset relief program) funds. Those funds were originally supposed to be used to buy up all the difficult to price (read - toxic) assets from the various banks and bundle them up to be resold by the government. This action was analogous to the successful efforts of Sweden in a similar situation and to our very own Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) of the late 1980s during the Savings and Loan crisis. But we abandoned this approach.

If there is one thing the market hates above all others it is uncertainty. This proven model of asset bubble resolution was abandoned as former Treasury secretary Hank Paulson somewhat understandably tried to coordinate his actions with his fellow central bank brethren in the UK when Gordon Brown started to infuse capital directly into the banks. This “change in plan” injected further uncertainty into the market and didn’t resolve the preexisting uncertainty created by the toxic assets themselves. As such, the implications of this action or “change in plans” are the real story as it has had significant implications in resolving the current financial crisis.

Diving into these real issues takes a bit of investment. I’m sure the media and blogosphere are up for it. Sphere: Related Content

DeMint's Curious Comments

In an effort to brand himself the flag bearer of renewed small government Republicanism, Jim DeMint recently said, "We have to have a remnant of the Republican Party who are recognizable as freedom fighters. What I’m looking to do as a conservative leader in the Senate is to identify some Republicans, and even some Democrats, and put together a consensus of people who can help stop this slide toward socialism."

DeMint is the first term senator from South Carolina who took his seat in the senate in 2005. Prior to his senatorial stint, DeMint was in the US Congress from 1998 until the time of his senate win. DeMint was ranked in both 2007 and in 2008 as the most conservative senator in the senate by National Journal. This distinction likely comes from political stances such as opposing gays or single mothers from being able to teach in schools.

DeMint has clearly staked out a position as being an ideological opponent of the new administration. To his credit, he has made a name for himself when it comes to fighting pork barrel spending. But his crusade against socialism should start at home if his principles truly excite his passions as he suggests. Per the Tax Foundation (see taxfoundation.org), South Carolina receives $1.35 for every $1 in federal tax dollar it sends to the federal government. That tidy 35% return on investment ranks South Carolina as the 16th most subsidized state in the US and put's DeMint's home state in the company of states like Mississippi, Alabama, and Arkansas that also reliably voicing conservative cultural principles but are often less principled when it come to practicing them.

DeMint famously tried to strip funding from the city of Berkeley, California in early 2008. This flap occurred during the Code Pink protests in front of the Marine recruiting station in Berkeley. The senator was censured for his divisive tactics by his colleagues. But ironically, his state which he asserts is a bastion against socialism is in the end a net debtor to a state like California which he so richly despises. California only gets $.78 cents for every dollar it sends to the federal government. Many of those "lost" cents are surely headed to DeMint's last great hope of fiscal conservatism South Carolina.

Crying hypocrisy when it comes to politicians is not very hard to do. But, in this case the basic facts should chasten some politicians from over reaching when taking positions. The media, with an investment of about 15 minutes, should have been able to point out these simple observations. DeMint’s home state newspaper The State did not seem to have the time or energy to point out these simple incongruous facts- DeMint’s new proclamations simply don’t jive with the state’s utter dependence on Yankee and Crazy California money. Sphere: Related Content

The War That Gets Too Little Attention

Sorry to mislead the few good folks reading this post. The War That Gets Too Little Attention isn't REALLY happening with Afghanistan or really in the end with Afghans. It’s with everyone else. Afghanistan has been the site of proxy wars in the past and it is once again. During the Great Game the British and Russians vied for control of Central Asia and Afghanistan was at the heart of that game of Risk. During the late 1970s and during the course of most of the 1980s, Afghanistan was the setting for one of the hot spots in the Cold War between the US and USSR.

Today, it’s the strange battleground between the US and its allies and the Al Quaeda/Taliban/Pakistani nexus…and if that wasn’t enough, it’s with a variety of other players too. If you want to add complexity to the situation, you can throw in other regional players such as Russian, Iran, India, and China into the mix. Afghans seem incidental in the equation. There are numerous players and interests. Let’s take a quick review.

Pakistan has the most direct interest in Afghanistan. As a long narrow country that has a long and massive border with a significantly larger neighbor India, Afghanistan provides “strategic depth” to Pakistan on a variety of dimensions. Afghanistan is, in a sense, Pakistan’s backyard and fall back point. The Pakistani Inter-services Intelligence agency (or ISI) worked with the CIA to support the Mujahadeen in the 1980s when Pakistan and the US were working together to eject the Russians from Afghanistan. The Mujahadeen morphed into the Northern Alliance and Taliban after the US and Russians disengaged. The Russians and Indian’s were allied so the last thing the Pakistan’s wanted was the prospect of a two front war with India on the East and the Russians on the West.

After the Russians left, the Taliban represented a reliable ally and was culturally akin to the increasingly fundamentalist leaning Pakistan military. The Pakistani military slowly began slinking away from its secular British Sandhurst roots under the leadership of General Zia (one of Pakistans many military dictators over the years) in the 1980s. Pakistan’s need for Afghanistan increased after the early 1970s breakaway of Bangladesh from Pakistan during one of 3 major conflicts with arch rival India. Many people may remember that Bangladesh used to be East Pakistan and was ruled from the current capital of Pakistan in Islamabad. But Pakistan’s reliance on Afghanistan is not just as recent as the 1970s. In the 1940s, just after Britain gave independence to both Pakistan and India; the Pakistani’s used Afghan irregulars to march into Kashmir. At that time the maharajah of Kashmir was trying to remain independent of both Pakistan and India. It was a majority Muslim state ruled by a Hindu monarch. When the Afghan irregulars showed up at his door, he was scared shitless and ceded his thrown to India. Ever sense, Afghanistan and Pakistan have had a weird intertwined relationship.

I’ll cover the rest of the players quickly. First, you have India which currently has some nominal number of troops in Afghanistan and a lot of engineers doing infrastructure construction. The Indian’s don’t want the Taliban coming back into power and providing safe haven to Al Qaeda and any other gaggle of merry terrorists who love to target India. And, they don’t want to afford Pakistan any of that “strategic depth”. The Iranians historically have not been too friendly with the Taliban given the Taliban have really not been big fans of Shias and have been known to kill them when they find them. Interestingly, the Iranians have sort of flipped over the last few years and been helping the Taliban given the US presence in Afghanistan. That flip is in line with a consistent policy of destabilizing US efforts in both Iraq and now in Afghanistan. Ironically, Iranian intelligence was actually helping the US in the early days of the Afghan conflict soon after 9/11. Afghanistan has become one of the battlegrounds of a proxy war between the US and Iran.

The Russians want access to Afghanistan’s route to the sea in a bid to develop a gas pipeline that could bring Central Asian natural gas to the South Asian markets and ports to be shipped throughout the world. The US wouldn’t mind a piece of this action as well. The Afghan’s recently (and I mean on the day of the Obama inauguration) signed a security agreement with Russian to send a signal that the government in Kabul had more allies than just those in Washington. The Chinese have a small border with Afghanistan and are close allies with Pakistan. Anything the Pakistanis want, the Chinese are likely to comply with because the Chinese see the Pakistanis as counter weight to keep India distracted since India is the only country in the region that could even remotely offer an option to Chinese domination of that part of Asia. And, oh by the way, the Chinese aren’t thrilled with having so many American troops so close to them.

So…that just sets some context. I’ll post next about how the plot thickens with all of these actors. The media rarely covers these complexities...but they should. Sphere: Related Content

I recently spoke to Robert Bluey of the Heritage Foundation. Robert is head of online services for the prestigious conservative think tank. Robert has noted that right now the GOP is looking a bit enviously upon the online outreach machine that Barack Obama has put together. But, adversity is the often the root of transformation. It wasn't long ago when Democrats were green with envy of Karl Rove's impressive micro-segmentation database that sliced and diced the electorate up...all the way down to the type of salad dressing each voting bank preferred.

Contrary to popular belief, the GOP actually had a better message machine in the 2008 election...at least from this bloggers perspective. The much heralded "Republican Noise Machine" performed admirably. That noise machine primarily consisted of quick dispatch and dissemination of talking points from the campaing into the loyal right wing blogosphere. The left was never quite so coordinated in a "real-time" way. Left wing bloggers would often complain to me about access and messaging to the Obama campaign or the DNC. I often heard that those liberal bloggers who signed up with the McCain campaign to check out how the compeitition was moving were inundated with McCain email memos throughout the day with messaging guidance and backup information, citations, and loads of supporting data and andecdotes. It made writing about subjects with one voice almost unavoidably easy. The Obama campaign was never quite on top of this like the McCain campaign and it showed. People may forget, but it seemed like the McCain campaign was always throwing little curves and controlling the tempo of the conversation through much of the summer of 2008. That was the much revered messaging machine at play.

What the Obama campaign got right was create more of a movement versus a traditional marketing machine through online technologies. Ultimately, both are marketing machines. In a bizarre irony, Obama did what the GOP has always wanted to do...disintermediate the media (get rid of the press middle man). The Bush administration had always focused on ignoring the traditional media or at least the media that they didn't feel was aligned with them or would give them what they perceived would be a fair shake...and, a dominant meme on the right has always been "liberal media bias." For the right, the press they ignored was the "traditional liberal media of print and TV news" and instead focused on getting their message out through the blogosphere (the new media outlet of choice) and radio. News in the blogosphere would slowly perculate up to the more traditional news outlets and the GOP message would come through. That was essentially the strategy. But, this approach was still traditional broadcast or mass marketing. Karl Rove's micro-segmentation approaches were still being used by the GOP, but the direct contact was limited to traditional touches. It was used to figure out what was important to these people and play to those values and needs using direct mail.

The Obama campaign took the micro-segmentation approach to a new level. Social networking technologies such as Facebook and more personal text messaging communication were used to create a one-on-one relationship with individual voters...and, it was put in the context of a 2-way conversation as opposed ot a 1-way (heres what you need to know) conversation. People could interact in places like Facebook and self-affirm their views. This more intimate contact was followed with an incredibly high touch campaing of house meeting organization where people could follow-up virtual world contact with real-world contact. This is where much maligned Chicago-style community organzing really came into play. The emotional need of feeling like you are really part of something bigger than yourself which is one emotional need a campaign often fulfills was better met through personal communication and ease of personal inolvement that technology enabled. Frictionaless involvement is what you got. Ultimately, the blogs which were the first evolution of media disintermediation themselves got a bit disintermediated. You got a level of even greater fragmentation with people not just going from the few large media outlets to the many thousands of blogs but down to the more granual level of millions of voices speaking to one another.

In the post election environment, the Obama campaign is wisely not abandoning its impressive technology and people infrastructure. Big problems often require big solutions...and we are clearly living in an age of big problems. Those big solutions often are going to piss someone off. As such, maintain broad popular support will be critical. The campaign infrastructure will be critical in providing the political capital to push through many desired initiatives. The next big challenge for the Democrats will be to try to use this infrastructure to bring in GOP recruit in the context of bipartisan problem solving. Being open to opposing ideas and issue-focused would possibly make this infrastructure more appealing to become a part of for some moderate Republicans. That tone will be set from the top. In the meantime, the GOP will be sure to learn the same tricks of the trade and come armed with a better grass roots campaign in 2010 and 2012. Sphere: Related Content