Last night it looked like Rick Perry was throwing in the towel.  This morning he tweeted about competing in South Carolina.  Apparently  something happened over night to change his mind.  One possibility is that Michelle Bachmann may have contacted the Perry campaign and promised to endorse him.  One reason might be that Bachmann is a solid conservative and she does not believe that Rick Santorum can win.  Another reason might be the realization of what else happened in Iowa, besides Perry coming in a dismal fifth.

 Mitt Romney barely edged out Rick Santorum.  Since Santorum was in the single digits a couple of weeks ago, that is more of an indication of the weakness of Romney than the strength of Santorum.

Newt Gingrich is in serious trouble and is now on a mission from God to destroy Romney.  That probably won’t win the nomination for Gingrich but it certainly has the potential to hurt Romney.

Ron Paul is clearly slipping in the polls.  Iowa was probably his high water mark.

Rick Santorum has had a free ride and we don’t know how he will respond to a negative campaign.  The Romney camp has totally ignored Santorum.  That is about to change.  Every other challenger to Romney has crashed and burned.  Right now Santorum is burning bright.  The question is whether or not he will flame out. 

That leaves us back exactly where we were a week ago.  This is still a strong not-Romney block of the Republican Party and Perry knows that the last man standing has a real shot at the nomination.  More importantly, Perry would not have made this decision without the strong urging of some really bright people who also have a lot of money.  Perry was clearly ready to throw in the towel and someone or something changed his mind.

Perry’s performance in Iowa was pathetic.  There is no getting around that.  But part of the reason is that he has been ignored by the media.  Even Fox News just stopped mentioning him as a candidate.   But Rush Limbaugh told everyone yesterday to not dismiss Rick Perry.  Perhaps Rush contacted Perry and asked him to stay in a little longer.  If you think about it, if Rush Limbaugh starts saying that people ought to take another look at Perry, people will take another look at Perry.  Rush has more influence within conservative circles than anyone else in the country.  It is also significant to note that while Sarah Palin told Bachmann to pack it up, she did not say that to Rick Perry.

I do not know.  Maybe Perry had another brain freeze and is incapable of recognizing the obvious.  Or maybe he is a lot smarter than people think and this is not over.  In any event the ball is now in Rick Santorum’s court.  If he is capable of handling the ball, the Perry campaign will soon be really over.  If not, we are left with a weak Mitt Romney and a vacant not-Romney slot. 

One thing is certain.  Rick Santorum is about to be tested and we will soon learn how well he handles it.

TDM

There were two men hiking in Alaska when they were confronted with an obviously angry Grizzly bear.  One of the men immediately sat down and replaced his hiking boots with tennis shoes.  The other guy laughed at him and said:  “what are you trying to do, out run a grizzly bear?”  The first guy said: “no, I just need to out run you.”

In many ways that describes the situation in Iowa.  Romney will probably win.  Ron Paul and Rick Santorum will probably do ok, but neither can win the nomination.  Michelle Bachmann looks like toast.  That means it is down to Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich.  Rick Perry doesn’t need to beat Romney, Santorum or Paul.  He just needs to beat Newt Gingrich, or at least come very close.  If he comes in behind Bachmann, he will be the one eaten by the Iowa grizzly.  That of course would not spare Bachmann, Paul or Santorum; it would just delay the funeral and probably give the nomination to Romney.

Newt Gingrich still has a long shot at getting the nomination, but the odds are against him.  His poll numbers are dropping faster than Kathy Griffith’s clothes during the CNN’s New Year’s Eve broadcast.  The problem with all those negative ads being run against him in Iowa is that most of them are obviously true.  Gingrich has provided decades of ammunition.

So, the only real issue tomorrow in Iowa is whether or not Perry can outrun the grizzly.

TDM

Jon Huntsman recently said that Iowa picks corn, not Presidents.  It was a dumb thing to say.  However, since he was already running last in Iowa, it probably doesn’t matter.  He is right in that Iowa doesn’t necessarily decide who will be President, but Iowa often does decide who will not.  As Dick Morris said recently, Iowa is the biggest political graveyard in the world.  No one may really win in Iowa, but someone is almost certain to lose.

Most polls show Romney at or near the top.  The most significant change has been with Gingrich, who is falling like a stone.  I wouldn’t be surprised to see Gingrich drop down to fifth.  That would be a disastrous result for him.  If he stays in the top three, or even a strong fourth, he can continue for at least a while, but if he finishes below both Perry and Santorum he will be in serious trouble.

(Note:  today Gingrich cried while discussing his deceased mother, and then floated the idea of Sarah Palin as VP.  This looks pretty desperate to me.)

Ron Paul is also dropping in the polls.  For a long time it looked like he might even win Iowa.  He still might do very well, because his support is rock solid, but he is finished as a candidate for the Republican nomination.  His isolationist views on Iran are even to the left of Obama.  When you get schooled on manhood, by Michelle Bachmann, you’ve got a problem.

Michelle Bachmann appears to be fading away.  Unless something changes she is going to finish fifth or sixth, barely edging out Huntsman.  Since she won the straw poll last fall and since she has invested all of her time and effort in Iowa, she has to do very well there to continue.  I don’t think that is very likely.

That leaves Perry and Santorum who are both surging in the polls, at the expense of Gingrich, Paul and Bachmann.  This is likely to be an interesting result.  They say there are three tickets out of Iowa:  first class, coach and standby.  This year that may change.  Romney will probably get the first class ticket.  But Ron Paul, who is likely to come in first or second, won’t benefit much even if he wins.  It really doesn’t matter what happens in Iowa, because Ron Paul is a fatally flawed candidate. 

That means Santorum and Perry will probably finish third and fourth, without much margin between them.  Santorum needs this more than Perry, primarily because he has zero money.  Perry doesn’t need to win; he just needs to show a pulse.  But if they finish third and fourth, it will really be viewed as finishing second and third, because Paul doesn’t matter anymore.  I think both would get a coach ticket out of Iowa.

At that point it could become a two man race for the non-Romney position.  In such a race, Perry would have an enormous advantage.  The reason is that Perry has already taken the hits and he is still somewhat upright, but everyone has ignored Santorum.   Santorum was hammered with negatives during his 2006 re-election campaign, which is why he lost.  If he has a strong showing in Iowa, the first impact will be a major assault by opponents in both parties.   It won’t be pretty.

Perry, on the other hand, has already been tested.  The Republican Establishment tried to take him on in Texas by running Kaye Bailey Hutchison against him in the Republican Primary for governor.   Then the Texas Democrats tried to take him on during the general election.  Please keep in mind that George W. Bush was the first Governor in the history of Texas to be elected to two consecutive four year terms.  Rick Perry was the second.  He has now been elected to three consecutive four year terms.  Opponents have been trying to dig up dirt, unsuccessfully, on Perry for years.

The Republican establishment is afraid of Rick Perry, because he is not part of the cultured elite.  They don’t fear another George Bush as much as they fear another Goldwater.  What they fail to realize is that no other Republican would have done any better against Johnson in 1964.  Lyndon Johnson took over from Kennedy in November of 1963, when Kennedy was assassinated.  He was still in the “honeymoon” period during the 1964 election.  In addition, we had the “Gulf of Tonkin” incidents on August 2 and August 4, 1964.  On August 7, 1964, Johnson asked congress to pass the Tonkin Gulf Resolution which unleashed the Vietnam War.  At a minimum this was awfully convenient for Johnson who was being hammered by Goldwater as being too soft on national security.  Once congress passed the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, which Goldwater had to support, Johnson coasted to election.

The Republican establishment firmly believes that a candidate running for election with strong conservative principles is doomed to a Goldwater like defeat.  Reagan proved them wrong, but just like the Global Warming Alarmists, true believers are seldom distracted by inconvenient facts.  They actually believe Reagan won in spite of his conservative positions.  They are wrong.  He won because of his conservative principles.

I think both the Obama administration and the Republican establishment are terrified of Rick Perry.  He is a real threat to the establishment in both political parties.  This year I believe the American people are fed up with both parties.  Usually, when a candidate says he or she is not part of the political establishment, they are lying.  In Rick Perry’s case he is definitely part of the Texas political establishment, but he is not part of the Washington establishment.

Ron Paul is doing well because he is playing the role of an angry man promising real change.  Paul cannot win this election, but the country is still desperate for an angry man who looks ready, willing and able to really change things.  I have a dream of Rick Perry going around the country saying:  “I’m mad as hell at all of them and I’m not going to take it anymore.”  If that happens, he just might run the political table.  A lot of pundits view Perry as a weak candidate with little chance of winning.  I disagree.  I think Perry just may turn out to be a Super Star.  The question is whether or not we will get the chance to find out.  We may be less than 100 hours from getting that question answered.

TDM

The main stream media is desperate to determine who will be the Republican Candidate for President.  This includes the fine folks at Fox News.  However it is important to remember that the main stream media is ALWAYS biased for folks just like them.  That means they always choose the candidate who performs the best on television.  That is why they love the Presidential Debates.  It showcases the ability of the candidates to be smooth and relaxed in that kind of environment.  Everyone on television has this type of ability.  That is why they are there.  They are all good at talking to the camera and making good points in 30 seconds or less.  But the problem is that this has absolutely nothing to do with being a President of the United States.  Presidents rarely give press conferences and never participate in debates, other than during an election.  They give speeches from prepared remarks.  In Obama’s case, he almost always uses a TelePrompter.  Most important, the Presidency is an executive position that requires someone with executive experience.  We don’t need an actor who can play the role of President, we need a President.  That should be really obvious.

Note:  If Obama had to participate in debates this year, similar to those endured by the Republican candidates, he would have been shredded.  Obama only participated in debates where he faced no tough questions because moderators were terrified of being called racist.  During the election itself he only debated John McCain and actually didn’t do that well.  He was behind in the polls, until the financial markets collapsed and McCain self-destructed.  We do not know how well Obama would do in a debate, because he has NEVER been in a real debate. 

A far better way for us to choose a candidate is to base it on the following criteria:

1.        Who has the right kind of experience?

We are already paying a terrible price for electing someone with zero executive experience as President.  That is why Obama is panned as a leader by both the left and the right. 

The best experience for handling the job as President is to be Governor of a large state.  That is why so many of our Presidents were former Governors.  That is where people learn how to govern.  Only two Presidents have gone directly from the Senate to the White House; John Kennedy and Barack Obama.  In most cases Senators run for President, but Governors are elected President. 

2.        Who has a conservative record as Governor?

The best way to tell how a candidate will govern as President is to evaluate how they governed as Governor.  Do you like the way Mitt Romney governed in Massachusetts, Jon Huntsman governed in Utah or Rick Perry governed in Texas?

3.       Who has actually won highly contested national or statewide elections?

The pundits always tell us who is or is not electable.  But, in my opinion, the best way to determine who is electable is to consider who actually got elected.  Two of the candidates, Newt Gingrich and Michelle Bachmann, never won a state wide election for any office.  Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House, but he was stripped of his Speakership due to a rebellion in his own party.   He has been running for President, and losing, for decades.  Rick Santorum lost his bid for re-election to the Senate by 18%.  Mitt Romney did not run for re-election as Governor in Massachusetts at least partially because he was behind in the polls.  Jon Huntsman and Rick Perry both won re-election by large margins.

Even the New York Times noticed this, as shown in the following article:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/the-governors-advantage-in-presidential-races-is-bigger-than-you-thought/

If you have a better way to choose a winning candidate, please let me know.  Remember the political establishment experts gave us Gerald Ford, Bob Dole and John McCain, none of them Governors, because they were “most electable.”  As of now the media is heavily promoting Rick Santorum as the alternative to Romney and Gingrich.  Really?   I like Rick Santorum, but I absolutely shudder at the thought of someone who got trounced in his last election leading our ticket during a tough campaign.  There is a reason Santorum got trounced in Pennsylvania. 

Obama will lose the next election unless the Republicans choose the wrong candidate.  Sadly, with the help of our main stream media experts, we may do exactly that.  The best way to beat an incompetent and naïve radical is to run a candidate with solid experience at governing effectively.  I really don’t think Obama can beat Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman or Rick Perry.  The reason is that all have good records as governors.  Unlike Obama, they have all demonstrated the ability to do the job.  But Gingrich, Bachmann and Santorum are all capable of losing to Obama.  .  If Republicans are really this dumb, perhaps they deserve to lose.  But this time, if the Republicans lose, the damage to the country may be irreparable. 

TDM

Most of the polls from Iowa are worthless.  There is one exception, the Insider Advantage Poll.  Most polls just call people and then extrapolate results.  But the Insider Advantage surveys 391 people considered likely to actually participate in the Iowa GOP Caucus.  Since the Caucus is not like a primary, there is often a huge difference between who is willing to show up for three hours on a cold night in January and those willing to spend five minutes at a polling booth.  It is something that makes Iowa very special.

 Latest results for the Insider Advantage Poll are in the following link:

 http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2011/InsiderAdvantage_IA_1218.pdf

Here is how it looks to me: 

Ron Paul is in first with 23.9%.   He may win, but it won’t matter

Romney is in second at 18.2%.  He is likely to end up with the same percentage, but he could slip back to third or lower.

Rich Perry is third with 15.5%.  If this is accurate, that is a major surge.  If this trend continues he could come in second or even win in Iowa.  Coming in second to Ron Paul would be the same as a win.

Newt Gingrich is 12.9% and sinking like a stone.  He could even fall further.  If he finishes fourth or worse he is probably toast.

Michelle Bachmann is at 10.1%.  She has devoted maximum effort in Iowa.  She needs to come in first, second or a very strong third to continue.   I don’t see that happening.

Rick Santorum is at 2.9%.  Unless he improves significantly, this is the end.  He has practically moved to Iowa.  If he can’t make it there, he can’t make it anywhere.

Jon Huntsman is at 3.8%.  Huntsman is filthy rich so he doesn’t need Iowa, but at some point he has to show some signs of a pulse.

 Obviously, things may change and the only poll that matters is the one taken in person at the Caucus on January 3.  One thing is sure; the Iowa Caucus will have a major impact on this race.  If Perry pulls this off, he will have been accurate when he referred to himself as the Tim Tebow of the 2012 Republican Presidential race. 

 TDM

It is hard to determine who is the most incompetent, or stupid:   President Barack Obama, The United States Senate, or the U.S. House of Representatives.  None of them have a clue with regard to the impact of their latest political game.

Obama ordered congress to stay in town over the Christmas Holiday, while he planned on surfing in Hawaii.  (Okay…body surfing.  There is no evidence Obama can actually surf).  He was finally shamed into staying in town, so he sent Michelle and the kids ahead, at taxpayers’ expense.  He stayed behind to light the Washington Christmas tree, which apparently has nothing to do with celebrating Christmas, or Jesus Christ, but does have a large ornament adorning it saying, “I Love President Obama.”  The House responded by passing an idiotic one-year extension in the Social Security Tax cut.  Social Security is already broke, so this already cost the Social Security Trust Fund $120 billion last year, while providing zero stimulus to the economy.  If they repeat this dumb decision, it will cost another $250 billion, while still providing zero stimulus to the economy.  But both political parties are doing the irresponsible because they know they will be crucified by the main stream media if they dare act like adults.

The Senate managed to take an incredibly dumb idea and double down on the stupidity.  They want to extend this tax cut for only two months.  That is, by far, the most irresponsible position possible.  Unbelievably six RINOs are giving vocal support to this unbelievable naïve and irrational proposal. 

They are obviously just kicking the can down the road so we can have the same argument in February.  Why on earth would anyone expect a different result in February?  If congress cannot find the ability to reach an agreement when they are threatened with missing Christmas, delaying Ground Hog day is unlikely to change hearts and minds.  But the real problem is that this is likely to have a devastating impact on the economy, particularly with regard to creating any jobs.

What the geniuses in Washington failed to consider is that this legislation affects every business in the United States that issues a paycheck.  As of right now, no one knows how much Social Security tax to withhold on January 1.  Since it looks like there will be no tax extension passed, all the systems need to be immediately reprogrammed from 4.2% to 6.2%, assuming they haven’t been programmed already.  Probably not, since a few days ago everyone was predicting an extension.  Since no one could predict what congress and President Obama would do, odds are nothing was done.   There is no way this can be done by the end of the year.  In some cases that won’t be done by the end of January.  That means employers are probably going to do hand calculations to issue payroll checks, if they can issue them at all.  This is a massive undertaking.  Unbelievably, the only thing certain is change.  So if congress changes its mind and extends the payroll tax after all, the computers will need to be re-programmed again.  In the meantime don’t be surprised if a lot of people end up not getting paid at all.  It is an expensive nightmare that never should have happened.

Democrats are practically foaming at the mouth in the rush to blame Republicans for a massive tax increase.  The main stream media will almost certainly blame everything on Republicans for trying to protect the filthy rich from a miniscule increase in taxes while heaping an enormous tax increase on the poor.  In the meantime there doesn’t seem to be a single Republican capable to explaining the reality of the situation to the American people.  I don’t know which is more infuriating:  a liberal left wing Democratic Party willing to drive our economy into a complete meltdown, while cheered on by the liberal main stream media,  or a Republican Party that seems incapable of pointing out the obvious.  I am so tired of Republicans getting all defensive and saying things like “I don’t think it’s a good idea to raise taxes on anyone during a recession.”  ARE YOU KIDDING ME?  IS THAT THE BEST WE GOT?

I wish just one Republican leader, any Republican leader, would have the courage to stand up and say the obvious: 

You’re darn right Republicans are unwilling to compromise with Democrats.  It is no virtue to compromise with the Captain of the Ship of State when he is steering us toward disaster.  Refusal to compromise, when things are headed in the wrong direction is the only responsible course of action.  Compromising with President Obama and the Democratic Party will only make things worse.  We don’t need to compromise with a disastrous economic policy, we need to reverse course before it is too late. 

In the meantime Democrats and Republican have gathered around in a circular firing squad guaranteed to damage everyone inside the circle and a lot of innocent bystanders.

TDM

In 1996, the Republican nominee was Bob Dole.  Most Republicans cringe at the memory of how Bill Clinton, who was extremely vulnerable, coasted to re-election over the lifeless Dole.  Of course the third party candidacy of Ross Perot sealed the deal for Clinton.  I wonder how many Americans realize that Bill Clinton never came close to winning a majority of the votes in any national election.

Bob Dole won the Iowa Caucus in 1996, but Republicans were not very impressed.  They desperately looked around for some other candidate.  But when they did they found Pat Buchanan and Steve Forbes.  (I am ignoring the rest of the field which included Arlen Specter and Phil Gramm – ouch!)  Ultimately, Republicans reluctantly united behind Dole because he was the only thing resembling a horse in the field.  We are close to a repeat of 1996 with Mitt Romney.  Most Republicans are less than thrilled with Mitt Romney as our candidate and are desperately seeking a viable alternative.  But so far the alternatives have rapidly self-destructed.  First it was Rick Perry, who stepped in it more than once and even had a brain freeze on national TV.  Then it was Herman Cain who somehow thought no one would notice his “women” problems and his obvious lack of knowledge with regard to foreign affairs.  Now it is Newt Gingrich whose campaign is imploding as we speak. 

That leaves Mitt Romney.  Ron Paul has zero chance because of his naïve and irresponsible view of foreign policy, particularly with regard to Iran.  Michelle Bachmann continues to have no chance.  Even those who agree with what she has to say often find her annoying.  Santorum lost his last election in Pennsylvania by 18 points.  It would be insane to think he could be a winning candidate on a national scale.  Jon Huntsman doesn’t appear to even want the job and he often sounds more like a Democrat than a Republican.  

So, Mitt Romney will ultimately win the nomination, unless Rick Perry rises from the ashes.  That seems unlikely, but who knows?  There have been recent hints of a small Perry surge.  Actually it wouldn’t take much.  He is currently in fourth place in Iowa.  If Perry even came in third it would change everything.  He doesn’t need to win, he just needs to convince people that he is still a factor. 

The following brief video from Politico actually does a pretty good job of analyzing things in Iowa:

 http://www.politico.com/driving-the-day/

 This is hard to call, but it is pretty obvious that Gingrich has gone down in flames and unless Perry emerges as a dark horse contender, we are on the same path as 1996, where a candidate no one wants gets the nomination because there is no real option.

 The good news is that Mitt Romney is not Bob Dole and I think he would win the election.  It is still a little disappointing to see the Republicans once again settle on a candidate primarily because of the weakness of the competition.

 One final comment, Rick Perry has NEVER lost an election.  His off the cuff comments at a church in Iowa yesterday were stunning:

 “Here is what I want you to leave with, somebody’s values are going to decide the issues of the day … somebody’s values are going to be installed. The question is going to be whose values? Is it going to be those of us of faith or somebody else’s values?”

 The true test of eloquence comes during those unscripted moments when a candidate just speaks from the heart.  This reminded me of when George W. Bush said:

 I can hear you, the rest of the world can hear you and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear from all of us soon.

 It would be foolish to underestimate Rick Perry.

 TDM

Most people do not know much about the Japanese assault on Dutch Harbor.  The Japanese did little real damage to Dutch Harbor, but they made a mistake that would cost them dearly.  In 1942 the U.S. has no fighter capable of outmaneuvering a Zero.  One Japanese fighter pilot was so determined to kill Americans that he stayed behind to finish off an American PBY.  His name was Flight Petty Officer Tadoyoshi Koga.  He even stayed around after the PBY had splashed into the ocean to be sure.  One survivor of that crash, Aviation Machinist’s Mate W. H. Rawls crawled out of the burning wreckage and paddled away in a life raft.  Koga circled the life raft and machine-gunned Rawls to death.  But, Rawls who had been the blister gunner on the PBY had put one machine gun bullet into Koga’s plane.  Koga did not realize he had been hit, but that one bullet had severed the oil return line resulting in Koga’s oil pressure gage reading zero.  (The engine was actually unharmed).  Koga decided to radio for help and make a forced landing on nearby Akutan Island.  His landing gear caught in the muskeg and flipped the plane over breaking Koga’s neck.  One month later another PBY spotted the wreckage.  The plane was virtually intact.  As a result, the U.S. was able to obtain an intact Japanese Zero (ABFM-2 Zeke).  It was quickly dismantled and shipped back to the U.S.  American engineers learned a great deal from this aircraft and there was a myth that the Zero was used to develop the Navy F6F Hellcat.  That, like most myths, is not true.  The Hellcat was already being test flown before the U.S. got their hands on the Japanese Zero.  But it is certainly true that the loss of this aircraft made it much easier for American engineers to design planes that were very effective against the Japanese Zero.

 (This information is well documented in a great book:  “The Thousand Mile War”)

 In August of 1944, three B29’s were forced to land in Russia.  Stalin immediately seized the opportunity to steal our design.  They tried to replicate the B29 down to the last bolt.  It was only marginally successful, since Russia apparently could not replication the superb manufacturing tolerances required to produce a B29.  They did built about 850 TU-4s and they definitely learned a lot from these “captured” B29s.

 now the United States has lost a state of the art stealth drone.  Incredibly, if this article is accurate, Obama refused to authorize a mission to either retrieve the drone or at least destroy it.  If that is true, that Obama may have made a mistake far more serious than the loss of the Japanese Zero or the B29.  The United States is the only country on earth that can fly a bomber into a heavily defended area and destroy the air defense system.  This is priceless technology.  I am sure that this drone will be studied extensively by Iran, China and Russia and the knowledge they gain has the potential to be devastating.   It will not only help them develop air defense systems that can detect stealth aircraft, it will help them develop their own stealth technology to use against us.  I sure hope the mission was worth the risk of such an important aircraft. 

 http://floppingaces.net/2011/12/08/obama-rejected-plans-to-retrieve-fallen-drone-in-iran/

 I sometimes wonder how we will ever be able to repair the damage done by this naïve, incompetent; radical we foolishly elected to be our Commander in Chief.  It is embarrassing to see the President of the United States naively ask Iran to give us back our drone as if he honestly expects this to happen.  Please! 

 TDM

I worked for a company where Bill Walsh was on the Board of Directors.  As a result, I got to meet him on several occasions.  I love to talk about sports, but I was always more than a little intimidated talking about football with Bill Walsh.  I figured the only possible outcome was for me to say something incredibly stupid.  But in 2000 I was talking with Mr. Walsh just before the 2000 draft.  I am a fan of The University of Michigan, so I asked him what he thought of Tom Brady.  I had been very impressed by Tom Brady’s performance in the 1999 Citrus Bowl.  Walsh told me that he thought Brady had potential, but he was really excited about Giovanni Carmazzi.  Bill Walsh was one of the smartest football coaches in history, but he was wrong about Tom Brady.  Remember Giovanni Carmazzi?  Exactly!

During the 2000 draft every NFL teams passed on the chance to get Tom Brady.  He was finally chosen by the New England Patriots as the 199^th pick in the sixth round.  Chad Pennington, Giovanni Carmazzi, Chris Redman, Tee Martin, Marc Bulger, and Spergon Wynn were all chosen before Brady.  The Patriots weren’t exactly thrilled even then.  They had a hard time choosing between Tom Brady and Tim Rattay.  Brady started his NFL career as the 4^th string quarterback.  The Patriots weren’t the only ones to underestimate Brady.  When he enrolled at Michigan he was seventh on the depth chart.  He was so discouraged he hired a sports psychologist to help him cope and even considered transferring to Cal.

Brady eventually got to play when Drew Bledsoe was hurt.  The rest is history.  Tom Brady led the New England Patriots to four Super Bowls and won three of them.  Most people would rank him as one of the best Quarterbacks in the history of the NFL.

The point is that sometimes experts make huge mistakes in trying to predict winners.  In the case of Tom Brady the experts were obviously wrong.  But they should have known better.  Brady didn’t necessarily have the strongest arm or the fastest feet, but he was a winning quarterback for a big time football program.  Performance on the job should always be a major factor in choosing future winners.  I suspect Tim Tebow is going to be another important reminder of this principle.

We need to avoid making the same mistake in choosing the Republican nominee for President.  The dumbest possible way to judge a candidate for President is by his or her performance in those silly “Presidential” debates.  They only measure the ability of a candidate to shine in a bizarre, irrelevant beauty contest.  What relevance does that have to being President of the United States?  When is the last time a President of the United States had to participant in this type of debate?  We should not confuse reality TV with reality.

Republicans seem to fear a brilliant Obama dominating during a Presidential debate.  That is utter nonsense.  First, Obama is not brilliant.  If there was any evidence of brilliance we would have all his college transcripts.  Second, he is not a great debater.  He barely beat John McCain, who was pathetic.  Third, Presidential debates don’t really matter.  They are high theater, but that is all.  Obama didn’t beat McCain because of the debates; he won because of the financial meltdown.  Prior to collapse of the financial markets McCain was leading in the polls and may have won.

I greatly fear that we are overlooking our potential Super Stars while salivating over the next Giovanni Carmazzi or Tee Martin.  What should matter is performance in a position that demonstrates executive ability.  There is a reason why so many former Governors have become President.  Proven success as Governor is the best training ground for a President of the United States.  Knowledge of foreign affairs or economic policy doesn’t matter if you don’t know how to govern.

When choosing a winner it is also a good idea to start with people who have actually won.  Mitt Romney already tried to win the nomination and lost to “John McCain.”  Ouch!  Newt Gingrich has been running for President, and losing, since the mid 90s.  Rick Santorum lost his bid for re-election to the Senate by 18 points.  Michelle Bachmann won two elections for one congressional district.  Ron Paul has been running for President, and coming up short, since 1988. 

We should also consider which candidate has a consistent record of actually governing as a conservative.   The best measure of how someone will govern as President is how they performed as Governor.

Only two remaining candidates actually have a history of winning elections; Jon Huntsman and Rick Perry.  Only two candidates have been re-elected Governor by large margins.  Only two candidates have actually governed as a conservative.  Yet they currently rank at the bottom of the public opinion polls.

Are we really this stupid?  Mitt Romney might win if he gets the nomination, but Newt Gingrich is capable of going down in flames.  He has self-destructed at every prior opportunity.  He has never won a national or statewide election.  Neither Michelle Bachmann or Rick Santorum have the experience or the track record to suggest they can win a Presidential campaign.  Ron Paul will continue to play the role of Harold Stassen:  “always running, never winning.” 

Obama can be defeated.  Obama will be defeated.  His only chance at re-election is if the Republicans play a prevent defense and make an incredibly stupid choice for their nominee.  Sadly a lot of experts are trying to convince us to bet everything on the next Chris Redman or Spergon Wynn.  If we take their advice, we are likely to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.

 TDM

In a recent debate Newt Gingrich made reference to the use of Six Sigma as part of his governing philosophy.  It brought back a lot of memories.  Six Sigma was developed by Motorola in the 1986 and according to supporters it saved billions of dollars. I observed the results when Six Sigma was implemented at some major insurance carriers. The process includes “Champions” “MasterBlackBelts” “BlackBelts” and “Greenbelts”.  These are people specially trained in Six Sigma who create kind of a separate infrastructure within the company.  I have sat through several briefings where the Six Sigma process was explained in detail.  The closest thing I have seen to this is “Money Ball” where Billy Beane used data and statistics to build the Oakland A team that competed successfully with very little money.  In theory, the Six Sigma approach uses data and analysis to make everything better. 

But that is not the whole story.  In every case were I saw Six Sigma implemented a clear pattern evolved.  At first people were mostly bewildered.  They were cautiously optimistic that Six Sigma will help their company grow and prosper.  Then lucky people were chosen for “Six Sigma” training.  Most of them appear to be younger people more willing to fully embrace the concept.  These people then come out of their training on a mission to change the world.  They descended dramatically on the remaining workforce with a mandate to change things.  As you can imagine, this is not necessarily welcome.  In one particular case the company was actually doing really well, before Six Sigma. But after Six Sigma, that changed.  Suddenly the people I counted on were unable to get their jobs done because they were constantly providing reports and data to be discussed at Six Sigma meetings.  One person told me he was so exhausted by the Six Sigma process that he had trouble doing his normal job.  I asked him if thought Six Sigma was worth the effort.  He gave me a very interesting response.  He said if you don’t believe in Six Sigma, you don’t have much of a future at this company.  He thought the process sounded good in theory, but in reality they sometimes wasted a lot of time and energy trying to find the perfect solution to something that could be resolved in about five minutes by a competent manager blessed with ordinary common sense.  He also said at least some of the Six Sigma “Champions” were brilliantly stupid, too blinded by data and statistics to see what was obvious to people with many years of experience. 

I also remember meeting having lunch with the new CEO of a major insurance company.  That company had fully embraced Six Sigma about 18 months earlier, before he was CEO.  He had been on the job about 3 months when I met him.  I asked him what he thought about Six Sigma.  Now CEO’s of major companies tend to be very reserved people, but he lit up like a Christmas Tree.  He said”  “I am proud to consider myself the Darth Vader that killed Six Sigma.”  Obviously, he wasn’t impressed.

The point is that if Newt Gingrich really wants to use Six Sigma to find efficiencies in Government that is a major concern for me.  I would prefer a less brilliant candidate who cuts costs by restricting government agencies to doing what really matters and stop trying to micro-manage the universe.

The following article by George Will shows that he has noticed the same thing:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/romney-and-gingrich-from-bad-to-worse/2011/12/02/gIQArsM3LO_story.html

Newt Gingrich believes he is the smartest guy in the room, which may be true.  But the one of the most intelligent people ever elected Presidnet was Jimmy Carter.  He was, after all, an officer on a nuclear submarine.  He was chosen as the officer in charge of the U.S. Team assisting in the shutdown of the Chalk River Nuclear Reactor.  The point is that Jimmy Carter was very intelligent and he was a skilled manager.  But when he tried to micro-manage the government he was a miserable failure.  I guarantee you Jimmy Carter was the kind of guy who would embrace Six Sigma.  Jimmy Carter was also the classic example of someone who was brilliantly stupid.

TDM