Connect the Dots! La-la-la-la!

For those on the left, the answer to the Tea Parties that sprang up on April 15 was supposed to be dismissal; they were simply "astroturf" events orchestrated from Inside the Beltway. That charge only goes so far, though, and with the images of thousands of people at tax protests across the country, charges of astroturfing ring fairly hollow.

So the Obama Administration took matters into their own hands. A report warning of "rightwing extremism" was leaked from the Department of Homeland Security. The report itself was probably not a commentary on Republican activism - but you have to read the report to know that.

What the timing of the report guarantees is that the phrase "rightwing extremism" will be uttered in news broadcasts within minutes of any coverage of the tea parties - not necessarily in a related story, but both items will be covered. Sometimes drawing the dots on the paper - and allowing others to connect them - is the best strategy.

But isn't the Delorean the "Car of the Future"?

The Chevy Volt - which, despite its name, runs on less than 1.21 gigawatts - is the car being asked to "save" General Motors. This electric model will produce zero emissions for most Americans (those that drive less than 40 miles per day) and goes from zero to 60 in nine seconds. (No word on how soon it gets to 88 miles per hour.)

The full model isn't due until next year, and it's going through some growing pains. In the meantime, as Wired reports, the Obama administration is trying to kill it. The task force appointed by the President to oversee handouts to the auto industry doesn't think the zero-carbon electric car will be profitable anytime soon. According to this blue-ribbon panel - which, incidentally, gets paid whether or not GM goes belly-up - GM should focus on more immediately marketable vehicles, rather than vehicles which will be marketable long-term.

Somehow, the Obama Administration has succeeded in being more nearsighted than Detroit auto manufacturers.

If GM was flush with profit, it would be a good time to experiment with new technology. Unfortunately, they are currently being propped up with someone else's money. The Obama Administration wants a return on their investment, and they won't let things like the long-term viability of GM get in the way.

That's the downside of asking for money from a controlling interest that doesn't understand your business.

Instant Karma in Moldova

Over the past few years, there has been no shortage of media stories about the use of the internet - whether it was hailing the Obama campaign's vaunted online tactics or the role of social media in modern communication.

The dirty little secret of "viral" campaigns is that, often, they are anything but. Massive national campaigns and corporate communications departments rarely produce content or platforms for participation without some kind of backup plan to encourage membership. Obama campaign staffers followed up by phone with people who signed up online to make sure their online support translated into offline action; McDonald's nearly ubiquitous Filet-o-Fish commercial has passed from email to email largely because it started with a national media buy and had broad exposure during the NCAA tournament telecast.

From the tiny European nation of Moldova this week, however, came a flash mob that started as 20 people and wound up over 10,000.

The success of the protest - measured by the sheer numbers of participants - is a result of using communications avenues to stoke emotions that already existed. A dozen or so young Moldovans, upset with elections that maintained a Communist government, took to the streets.

The failure of the protest - like so many web 2.0 failures - can be found in the question, "Then what?"

Having 10,000 fans on Facebook, or followers on Twitter, or friends on any of hundreds of social networks online is no big trick anymore; with online advertising those numbers can be bought. There must be some action so that those numbers actually mean something.

In Moldova, that lack of forethought turned ugly. The crowd evolved into a mob, and the mob became violent. People were arrested, 43 police officers wound up in the hospital, and the parliament building was looted and destroyed (and is no longer as funkadelic as it was even last week). The demonstration was a display of emotion, but far from an effective campaign for freedom.

Where's the happy medium between joining and forgetting a Facebook cause and buring down parliament? Phone calls, letters, and votes are a good place to start. Depending on who is behind the strategy, the end goal may be product sales or market share, or testimonials from satisfied customers. Whatever that goal is, though, online strategies must be a way there, or else they are only opportunities for distraction.

Politically speaking, freedom-lovers in America eager to answer Obama's online campaign would do well to think through their own strategies to determine the most effective path to change. There's a big crowd out there, and without some form of leadership, they may just start throwing rocks.

Fake it until you make it

Lost your job? Well, according to the New York Times, that doesn't mean you should stop going to work. The Times reported yesterday of the recession phenomenon of laid-off workers getting up, getting dressed, and going through the motions of employment. Career counselors quoted in the article say it helps maintain pride and good habits. Acting like everything is ok, or going to be ok, is actually helpful. Norman Vincent Peale was right.

It comes as no surprise, then, that since President Obama changed his rhetoric on the economy - shifting to the more positive, "fundamentals-are-strong" messages that he mocked last October - public optimism has followed - even with bad stories about unemployment numbers.

It would be an oversimplification to tie the eventual fate of Obama's presidency to the economy. Like Franklin Roosevelt, Obama's political future is tied to the perceptions of the economy. After all, FDR was re-elected twice while the Great Depression was still going on - and as his policies were extending it.

O-O-Obama!

It looks like I'll have to go to CVS to get my Obama Chia Pet - Walgreens is pulling the Chia Obama head from its Tampa, Fla.-area stores.

While no official reason is given beyond the product being incompatible with Walgreens' "corporate image" in local coverage, the Boston Fox affiliate points out that discussions around the product on Amazon and blogs have accused the folks at Chia of racism.

Since that would be ridiculous, I prefer to believe the problem is plagiarism. After all, Saturday Night Live explored the concept of Chia Hair nearly two decades ago. (I'd show you, but apparently Lorne Michaels doesn't want people illustrating points with SNL sketches.)

CIO back on the job

Vivek Kundra came back to the Obama Administration this week - his brief leave of absence came on the heels of an FBI raid of his old office and two arrests.

Before his gig as the Chief Information Officer of the country, Kundra served as the Chief Technology Officer for the District of Columbia. He wasn't the target of the FBI investigation, but his information systems security officer was arrested on bribery charges.

Privacy and online security will be among the biggest communication issues faced by the Obama Administration - with Google, a key Obama Administration ally, at the center of the storm. When taken along with the former lobbyists appointed to departments they used to lobby and cabinet nominees who couldn't be bothered paying taxes, the trend of lip service over ethics is more than a little disturbing.

Hail Science!

President Obama authorized funding for federal stem cell research today - a move which his supporters are hailing as a victory for science over the vagaries of political ideology.

But is it?

Embryonic stem cell research involves fertilizing a human embryo for the express purpose of harvesting stem cells. Opponents of embryonic stem cell research would point to the moment that a human egg is fertilized by a human sperm as the moment life begins. The natural progression of an embryo, without any outside addition, is a fully grown person. That's a medical and scientific fact.

Is the embryo life? Well, that's less clear. Like the origin of the universe or the cause of the dinosaurs' extinction, it's a matter of scientific debate. As anyone who appreciates science can tell you, the answers to many questions tend to change from generation to generation. But if you do the research and you accept fertilization as the creation of life, then it's a logical conclusion that the living entity has a set of rights. You might say it's a truth we hold to be self-evident.

What is becoming more clear is that there are a growing number of alternatives to embryonic stem cell research - so the discussion over whether or not the research sacrifices human life is one we don't have to worry about anymore. Or we wouldn't, if the Obama administration hadn't stepped in.

So if embryonic stem cell research isn't necessary, and only raises difficult ethical questions that can be avoided with equally useful alternatives, why open the can of worms? The answer lies in the memo which accompanies the executive edict. Outside of announcing another Detroit-esque plan to fund something which is outdated and controversial, Obama takes several thinly-veiled shots at his Republican predecessor.

In other words, it's more about politics than science.

I'm not even sure what channel Rush Limbaugh is on in DC

Nothing happens by accident in politics. The latest case in point is the flap over Rush Limbaugh.

It started with a seemingly offhand comment by President Obama, chiding Republicans for following the marching orders of the guy who, let's be honest, has gotten a ton of us interested in Republican politics. In the weeks following, the White House has taken repeated jabs at Limbaugh - to Limbaugh's delight. In a story published last week that I just stumbled across, Politico reveals that this has been a strategy months in the making. After finding high negative ratings for Rush Limbaugh in October polls, Democrats have been waiting for the right flap to arise and give them a chance to hang Limbaugh around the Republican Party's neck.

The behind-the-curtain strategy of what seem to be spontaneous events, like this Limbaugh controversy, demonstrates a key value of Washington - that governing is campaigning by other means.

Will it keep working? The Republicans won't get any overt help from Limbaugh, and why should they? As he has always said, his success "is not determined by who wins elections." Without a single Republican in Congress, Limbaugh could count on a reliable daily audience - and the longer a controversy like this goes on, the more he can add to that audience. The tete-a-tete with the President also gives Limbaugh figurative weight, as if he really is a key thinker for conservative/Republican circles.

Truth be told, it's more likely to be the other way around: Limbaugh is more likely to parrot GOP talking points than to devise his own platform for America. It's not a matter of laziness, but of reality: he's putting together a radio show, not a political movement.

Which raises an interesting point - as critical issues come before the federal government, why is the White House talking about a radio show blowhard? Aren't there real issues they should be working on?

They were going to call it O-Tube, but that sounds dirty

The weekly White House "YouTube" addresses aren't going to be on YouTube anymore. Instead, the videos will be hosted by a customized player. In the absence of a formal explanation, some are suggesting conflicts over YouTube's privacy policies.

As Cnet chronicles, the White House has been under criticism since the beginning for choosing Google-owned YouTube as its video hosting platform. The change may silence criticism of the White House, but it won't solve any of the root privacy concerns circling around Google and YouTube.

Could the White House have used its bully pulpit to make YouTube more secure? It certainly would have been a better service to internet users - after all, the folks who follow the President's weekly addresses probably view hundreds of other videos on YouTube as well. President Obama could have been vocal in calling on YouTube to change its policies to better serve its users.

Of course, it may not be about privacy. YouTube is more than just a video site - it is an online community. The President's Weekly Address is just one of millions of videos; and being on a site like YouTube invites comments and video responses. Maybe YouTube is too public a forum; perhaps the White House is unwilling to sacrifice their message monopoly to engage in a legitimate back-and-forth debate.

EXCLUSIVE: Preview of tonight's comments on the stimulus

Okay, maybe President Obama won't shed the Washington Blue Suit Uniform for Matthew Lesko's "I want to be the Riddler in Batman III" duds. But Mr. "Free Money for Everyone!" has been paying attention to the legislation passed by President, uh, "Free Money for Everyone!" - and he's already trying to make money off it, as reported by Mitchell Blatt.

(Of course, Lesko doesn't report that you can get your own stimulus check from the Bank of Obama.)

More interesting to me will be the tone the President takes tonight. Early reports indicate that the speech will be more forward-looking than his steady drumbeat of sour economic predictions that began before his inauguration; some have called on Obama to sound more positive.

(It will also be interesting to note whether "forward-looking" will mean more jabs at the previous administration; my money is on "yes.")

From its President, the country sure could use some good news. But politics is about managing expectations - so the more dire the current economic situation appears to be, the more credit Obama can take when the economy ticks back upward in a few years - likely just in time for his re-election.

It's a little like Groundhog Day (the holiday, not the movie): if during tonight's speech, the President sees a shadow, it means four more years of campaigning-by-governing.

Lessons from the Calvin Coolidge Snack Bar: Diet Sprite, the Stimulus, and Creating Demand

I took two economics classes at the University of Massachusetts. One was ECON 103, a course in basic macro economics that taught freshman how to draw basic supply and demand curves. It was taught by a professor in a big lecture hall with smaller sections on Friday mornings (which were mercifully taught in classrooms that were just a few hundred yard from my dorm). I slept through most of it, and if it had been the only economics class I took, I might be shrugging my shoulders right now and saying "Stimulus? Sure, why not."

The second class I took was in a building named, appropriately, after Calvin "Silent Cal" Coolidge (a staunch supporter of free market economics) when our dorm's House Council decided to found a snack bar in the 19th floor lounge. I was one of the nerds involved in House Council - a quasi-governmental body which, up to that point, had focused on putting on educational and social programming that no one cared about and no one went to. We decided to put the tax money we had collected to a better, more productive use by launching a social hub for Coolidge residents. It also taught me a great deal about how business works.

We launched simply in Spring 1998, and sent one of our volunteers out to buy the first run of supplies. She came back with one twelve pack of every type of soda she could find - assuming that we needed variety. We learned that demand didn't call for a wide variety - people were just happy to have a place in the building where they could get soda cheaper than the vending machines. We also learned that no one likes Diet Sprite. To get rid of the supply, I gamely purchased about eleven of the ten cans our supply director bought (so I can personally attest to how horrible it was - seriously, don't ever buy Diet Sprite).

Essentially, I subsidized the purchase of a product no one wanted. If we had only looked at raw data about which sodas sold quickest for our next supply run, we might have thought Diet Sprite was selling like hot cakes and bought more. Luckily, we were a tight knit group, so I could express my distaste for Diet Sprite. (Have I mentioned it's sickeningly sweet? Stay away from Diet Sprite.) What I had done is artificially create demand.

Eleven years later, our economy is lagging and President Barack Obama - in a phrase uttered last week that has been retooled for this week's speeches and press conferences - is blaming lost demand. People are simply not spending money, so the government will start spending for them.

When I created demand, it was 50 cents per can and I spent my own money. But now, with this stimulus plan, we're all chipping in.

And this is the problem with any government action under the umbrella of a so-called "stimulus package." Government doesn't seem to understand the world of business - which is why President Obama can say, with a straight face, that an entity with a trillion dollar operating deficit "is the only entity left with the resources to jolt our economy back to life." (Seriously - he actually said that.)

Since government doesn't understand business, and doesn't operate by the same rules, how can we expect government activity to turn the business world around? Maybe Obama is wrong to say doing nothing is not an option. Maybe doing nothing - for a change - would be the best option.

In the meantime, I hope you like Diet Sprite; since no one is buying it, we're going to buy a whole lot more of it.

NOTE: After some cursory research, it appears "Diet Sprite" is the same product as Sprite Zero. You're warned.

SOMEONE has to be making money...

An economic recession is difficult on a personal level. I know several people who are looking for work right now, and still more who are worried about whether their job - or even their entire company - will exist next week.

That said, slow economic times provide a chance to make needed corrections. In his pro-stimulus stand up act at last week's Democrat retreat, President Obama mentioned our economy losing trillions in demand. The stimulus, he said, is a way to artificially create demand.

There are, however, industries which are growing by leaps and bounds. Aging baby boomers are making assisted living and home health care major growth industries. Demand for office administrative services is growing - probably because top-heavy companies are recognizing that two or more cheap, administrative-level workers get more work done than an expensive partner-level executive. Outplacement firms are booming, helping laid-off workers with career changes.

I've worked at a company that went through what was called a "right-sizing" - and while some employees saw that term as a euphemism for down-sizing, it seemed appropriate to me. Tough times force belt-tightening and discipline - whether in personal finances or a national economy. It promotes efficiency. And the industries that thrive are usually stronger because they find demand that transcends the difficult times - versus boom industries, like late-1990's dot-coms or mid 2000s real estate, that are based on people gambling to make a quick buck.

I drive less now than I did a year ago. The $4/gallon gas prices this summer led me to be more economical, and now I fill my gas tank usually about twice a month and no more. Similarly, I spend money a lot more intelligently now than I did four or five years ago with the knowledge that, even if I don't get laid off, raises and bonuses that I was used to in the past may not be available now - realities also make me work harder and strive to expand my job-related knowledge.

As I work with fellow conservative activists to build new organizations, we realize that we cannot rely on an influx of donations to help fund our efforts so we must be streamlined and put an emphasis on providing a deliverable service to potential donors.

Tough times are leading to the development of good habits for me. Hopefully the same will be true nationally.

Faux-miliarity

Growing up, there were certain television personalities that were so familiar they seemed like family. Johnny Carson was one of these - I distinctly remember one of the few times I saw the Tonight Show when I was in elementary school, thinking that it wouldn't be odd to run into Johnny Carson at one of my grandfather's St. Patrick's Day parties. I bet many people felt that way about Carson - and about Ronald Reagan, too, which as big a reason as anything for his political success.

That type of connection is hard to forge, and the bond is strong enough to withstand quite a bit of stress - which is why folks who wouldn't otherwise agree with conservative policies voted for Reagan, and why Carson was the King of Late Night even if a joke fell flat now and then.

I thought of this when I read Judith Warner's Friday blog post at the New York Times. Warner recounts several anecdotes from people who share that level of false familiarity with Barack Obama and his family. From folks who feel a jealous respect for Obama's accomplishments to those that think about the activities of first family just a little too much, there's a similar connection that Carson and Reagan enjoyed.

Immediately, this has ramifications on the debate over the stimulus package - the bipartisan opponents will have a better chance of defeating something if they can hang it on the "Democrats" in general rather than on a popular and apparently approachable President. Long term, it means that defeating one unpopular bill will not completely turn the tables, and that opponents of the President's agenda won't carry as much momentum from one victory into the next battle.

Even when Johnny Carson bombed, people still tuned in the next night, ready to laugh.

Thanks, Washington!

Recent comments on the economy have shown just how much confidence we can place in our representatives. There are lots of companies out there that are failing or in debt because of irresponsible spending. Now that those companies are being supported by the taxpayers, President Obama and his pals are setting strict regulations - for instance, the people who caused this mess aren't allowed to give themselves raises. And they've come out strongly against those fancy "retreats" that are really just subsidized vacations.

It's good to see that folks with business sense are making decisions on the economic recovery.

Post-partisanship means never

The morning news was abuzz with video of President Obama's reactions to accusations that his "stimulus bill" is just a pork spending bill: "What do you think a stimulus is? That's the whole point."

That's refreshing honesty, and it would have been nice to hear the same candor last year when he promised to work with Democrats, Republicans, and independents. Though there have been attempts by moderate Senators from both parties to reach across the aisle, Obama's team of die-hards see no reason to engage in such niceties.

This may be a departure from campaign rhetoric, but it is consistent with Obama's "I won, you lost, I make the rules" brand of "cooperation"over the last two weeks. Despite the misgivings of fiscally responsible Democrats, he has a big enough cadre of his own team behind him and eager to push out a bill. "Has bipartisanship been a failure? So far it isn't working," claimed Chuck Schumer. The left has enough votes that they don't need moderates and conservatives.

Obama remarked last night that the American people didn't vote for "petty politics." It sounds like we're getting that anyway.

Settling up campaign debts

The AP is suing Shepherd Fairey for illegally using one of their images for his now-famous "Hope" illustration of Barack Obama. As my favorite journalism professor at UMass used to say, you can't spell "cheap" without AP. The Associated Press wants compensation for the use of their photo.

The compensation claim is difficult. Fairey has clearly benefited from the exposure gained through his portrait, but received little if any compensation from the image itself - since Fairey's goal was to elect Barack Obama, he allowed the image to be used freely. The biggest benefactor of the image was Barack Obama.

If there's any cash left in his $750 million campaign coffers, it might be nice to use some to help Fairey out - especially since the image was the basis for the official inauguration poster and buttons designed by the Obama transition team.

Of course, they might wonder - as I do - why the AP is bringing up the controversy now when the image saw its heaviest use months and months ago during the campaign.

Taxes? Slipped my mind...

Ladies and gentlemen, your next Obama appointment - the actual position doesn't matter, since he already has the talking points down pat:

Nice going, boys, you're playing last week's tape

February 2: America wakes up to the news that Tom Daschle didn't pay $140K of his taxes, and for some reason that may cause trouble with his nomination as Secretary of Health and Human Services. This comes on the heels of Treasury Secretary nominee Timothy Geithner's tax controversy.

It all sounds so familiar...

For transparency, this is a little fuzzy...

President Obama's stimulus package was the story of the week. The bill passed, but the bigger story may be what didn't happen - or at least, didn't happen yet.

TechPresident's Nancy Scola was incredulous that President Obama did not mobilize his grassroots standing army to support the stimulus, even as Republicans began crying "pork." Scola wondered if this showed the President felt he could take care of navigating the bill through Congress on his own. But some Obama critics - like Craig Colgan of TechRepublican - point out that the White House has not exactly on the cutting edge of new media, with a website that delivers little of the transparency, connection, and access that was promised on the campaign trail.

The answer may be that Team Obama cares more about the image of transparency than the actual substance. Consider Recovery.gov - a site which promises to track the stimulus package after its passage, so citizens can see where their tax dollars are going. A nice concept, but somewhat useless - after the bill passes, taxpayers can do little if nothing to change where their dollars go.

It may be that the Obama Administration realizes that, with less-than-ironclad public support, it may be wise to keep the people at an arms length while the stimulus is debated and ultimately passed by Congressional Democrats. But they will give you a great view once your money starts getting flushed.

Bipartisan Opposition

Some corners of the mainstream media continue to chide Republicans for opposing President Obama's stimulus/bailout/recovery/handout/train wreck bill. But on the day where the new face of the GOP will be chosen, consider this:

Opposition to the bill was bi-partisan, with 11 Democrats joining the Republicans in voting "Nay." The same can't be said for the support.