Measuring Up

Should America apologize to the world?

These are the newest media headlines floating around the last few days.

Give me a break. The theme is just dumb. It's a great sensationalistic story. But, dumb for a variety of reasons.

I'll start this argument with one of my favorite sensational quotes from a great movie created out of another financial crisis – "Greed is good." Gordon Gecko from Wall Street made that line famous. I don't necessarily agree with it. But, the point is that greed is a universal attribute. It doesn't begin with American capitalists and it certainly doesn't end with so many other financial executives around the world who willingly took part to create our current economic mess.

Yes, our U.S. economic and political system should be blamed as a willing leader of this debacle. But, what about all those other banks who willingly took part based in Scotland (RBS), Great Britain (HSBC and HBOS), Switzerland (UBS), Iceland (every bank) and the list goes on and on and on...

And, I haven't even mentioned that it was AIG's London arm that led the entire derivatives program which helped to push the global insurer over the edge.

Like anything that is too good to be true, human nature pushes human beings to stop asking questions and jump on the money-making bandwagon. That's what happened here. And, the United States is but one large culprit. Many others clearly deserve blame as well. As the New York Times reported yesterday, the real cause is actually skewed financial incentives around the world. These distortions have operated on multiple levels:
1)    An imbalance in world trade – China has huge surpluses, while everyone else is operating in serious deficits.
2)    Bailing out world financial systems whenever they are in trouble – This has greatly distorted the market.
3)    Having banks in many countries that were simply “too big to fail” – These banks took too many risks because they knew that bail outs would occur should the unthinkable happen (which actually did.)
4)    Lopsided incentive plans for the financiers – This created havoc in an otherwise naturally working free market system.
I really have to tip my hat to CNN, the Financial Times and all the other media that have carved out and pushed this tabloid-like storyline. With President Obama in Europe for the Summit meeting, it makes perfect sense to admonish our economic system for being too capitalistic. And, those sound bytes from other socialistic European economic leaders really nicely pit our leader who supposedly represents ‘free market’ capitalism (Obama) against everyone else.

The main problem is that this is not a cut and dried issue. Yes, there are many extenuating situations such as the fact that countries like France and Germany have had stagnating economies for over a decade with some of the worst unemployment in Europe. So, while they blame the US for its laissez-faire ways, they shouldn't forget that their policies, which border on socialism, have created state governments that had problems competing on a world scale and couldn't even employ their own employable workers much before this global crisis ever hit.

Maybe it's time to turn the tables. How about if we pin the blame squarely on the shoulders of our media?  I know. They've only helped to spread the rumors and harp on these negative themes so that they would be believed by all of us. They certainly didn't create the laws, provide the loans, or make the funky markets that traded us into crisis. Still, their powers have gone too far and if we could villanize them just for a week or two, it could certainly entertain many more people than what their stories intend to do now.

“Expect the worst and you may get it"

This was the catchy headline message from Robert Shiller's, New York Times piece yesterday. His premise is quite interesting. Based on historical data, it seems that the more we (Americans) talk about an impending depression, the more likely it is going to become a reality.

Everyone thinks that the 1930s Great Depression was the largest to hit our country. Not so. According to Shiller, we had two pretty significant ones in the 1870s and 1890s, as well.

He claims that it's important to understand that each depression was partly driven by the retelling of earlier depression stories. In fact, in the 1930s, there was such incessant talk about the previous depressions before, that this partially led to a reduction in consumers' willingness to spend and businesses' want to hire and expand.

Thus, the Depression storyline could easily end up as a self-fulfilling prophecy for us now.

It's also interesting to note that in each depression, an "accident" created a way out for America. For the ones in the 1870s and 1890s, the combination of European famine and a hugely successful crop at home stimulated our economy. And, of course, we all know how World War II greatly alleviated the economic pain of the 1930s.

So, if one believes this analysis, it seems to make sense that we (as a nation) need to stop obsessing and communicating so many negative fears about this terrible economy and start focusing (and acting) more positively about what's to come. Of course, that's not an easy thing to do. This strategy clearly needs to begin with our President. It's time for him (and his administration) to start reinforcing why this stimulus plan will work. They need to provide real details that we can believe and also should stop worrying about the political blame game. Meaning– we all know that George Bush helped to get us into this mess. There is no longer a need to continue to dwell on the fact that Obama’s administration didn't cause this economic downturn, and it will "take a long time" to get out.

Next, we need to find a way to create trickle down positive thoughts. If these optimistic viewpoints could make their way to state and local politicians, business executives, our media, the blogosphere and finally the American public, well... we just might fool ourselves into thinking that this recession will dissipate sooner than we think and the D-word was just a bad dream, with no chance of becoming a reality.

But, how do we really convince ourselves that life will get better? Maybe the real trick is to start putting faith in one component of our economy or society that will save us from this ugly malaise (i.e. "the accident.") Could it be the billions of dollars that will soon fuel alternative energy technologies that will change our fortune? Maybe, when we remove our hundreds of thousands of soldiers (and billions of $$$ in cost) from Iraq, we'll see an upbeat surge in consumer behavior? Maybe, just maybe the media will actually get sick and tired of writing about all the negatives and decide that they will be the collective group that brings the wind of change by only focusing on those nuggets of happy stories/indicators that exist, but are never in plain view. This in turn will create a ground swell of positive sentiment, changing our perceptions for the better. (OK, this one is clearly a long shot.)

I don't know what will change our luck. If I did, then I probably would have already bet my farm on it and certainly wouldn't be writing this blog. But, I do know that this is one blogger who can do his share by trying to avoid past mistakes. My doom and gloom depression-discussions are history now. It's time for me to look for positive signs and figure out new ways to prosper. Hopefully, that one small step will begin to make our day to day lives a tad more gratifying.

Obama’s Blind Spot

Just two weeks into the new administration, I’ve already started to question some of Obama’s recent decisions. Of course, I’m not alone. The media, political pundits and those in the blogosphere are scrutinizing every single move he makes. It’s much too early to become overly alarmed. I, for one, truly hope Obama succeeds, because lord knows we need it to happen.

My brother (a Democrat and liberal leaning American who supported Obama,) sent me the following email this morning about some initial worries he has about our President. He’s also added some specific thoughts on what lawmakers need to do to help stimulate our economy. Thanks, Mike.

Somewhat surprisingly, (because my political beliefs never match his) I agree with everything Mike has to say.… and have added one or two other recommendations as well. How can a liberal and a moderate republican agree on the same means to a political (and economic) end? My theory is that traditional conservative, moderate and liberal views are basically thrown right out the window at a time like this. This is all about stimulating an economy that isn’t lending, spending or doing much of anything. So, no one is (or should be) talking about why “rich” Americans make too much money (maybe because so many aren’t rich now.) And republicans aren’t condemning those without jobs or homes now as being “lazy” or “too dependent on the government” (because hundreds of thousands are now in this same lifeboat.)  Here’s what Mike has to say:

“As much as I respect the man, I believe that Obama has a giant blind spot.  He trusts and believes in people more than evidence shows he should.  This bit him during his candidacy with the Reverend Wright.  Instead of reviewing the evidence and determining that “Yep, I need to disassociate from this guy,” he continued to defend him until Wright threw Obama under a bus.  The same thing happened with Daschle.  Clearly, Tom Daschle is an ethical mess and has been for some time. Yet Obama trusted him because Daschle was a tireless campaigner for him.  So when Daschle is $128K short on his taxes (another clear ethical lapse,) the first thing Obama does is say that he stands behind him.  Instead, he should have looked at the reality of the situation, cut ties, and run quickly away from this selection.

So what does this mean (besides all the jokes about “Does anyone in the new president’s administration pay taxes?”)? It means the following:

•    Obama is giving up the moral high ground because he’s too loyal to people and is willing to change ethical stances based on loyalties.
•    Folks are losing trust in Obama.  If he says “I screwed up” on Daschle, will he say the same next year on the bailout plan?

On that note, I’ve been reviewing the various proposals.  You know I’m a Democrat, but the Republicans are making smart points on the sweeping progressive agenda that the house democrats are inserting into the package that has little to do with shoring up our mess.  So here’s my idea of the “core” of a bailout package, based on what I’ve read.

1. Shore up the states.  This includes funding for Medicare and education and keeps the situation from getting worse.
2. Eliminate the payroll tax for a few years. This puts 6.2% back into the pockets of employees and the same for employers.  A 6.2% raise is more likely to make people spend money than $500 doled out $20 a week.
3. Reduce the mortgage rate to 4% and don’t require a credit score of 10,000 to get this rate.  Make at reachable by those that have “good” credit, not just “amazing” credit. Allow refinancing and second home loans to get this rate.  Allow investment property to get this rate.  This provides an immediate jump to the housing slump.”

I’d also add a key fourth point to Mike’s list.

4) Help small businesses. Small businesses have generated 60 to 80 percent of net new jobs annually over the last decade. Boy, do they/we need some special incentives.  A good start would be to eliminate all capital gains taxes on small businesses (per Obama’s recommendation.) And, I also agree that there is just too much weight put on the small business owner shoulders because of having to pay both employee and employer side of the payroll tax. We need to stop making employers pay for the employee pay roll tax and give the employee a $500 “Making Work Pay” tax credit to support this handed off new burden.

In the words of Richard Daley, "Cuckoo"

This is clearly how the former Chicago Mayor and (undoubtedly) thousands of other Americans feel about Rod Blagojevich, the embattled Governor of Illinois.

Everyone knows the story, but just to recap current events: Blagojevich was caught red handed, on tape, telling associates over the phone that the now vacant Obama Senate seat was up for sale to the highest bidder. U.S Attorney General Patrick Fitzgerald ceremoniously announced the attempted crime weeks ago. And now, the Governor has been impeached and is days (or weeks away) from being voted out of office by the Illinois House of Representatives.

So, what does Blagojevich do? He embarks on the highest profile, New York City media tour to declare his complete innocence. Only, the tour is actually more like a three-ring circus because of the off the wall comments, messages and analogies that the Illinois Governor continues to spout off. Let's see, we've heard him compare his situation to Pearl Harbor (I think the intended meaning was that this is one giant surprise attack against him.) And, the man has actually said on camera that his persecution is very much like that Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King had to endure. But, my personal favorite is Blagojevich's analogies to famous movies like being in a "21st Century Frank Capra film" where the good guy's odds are piled high against him as he fights the establishment. His reference to the famed moved Silverado, (a western in which an innocent man is about to be hung for a theft he never committed,) was pretty entertaining as well.

Everyone thinks that Blagojevich is either crazy or clueless. From a pure public relations stand point, it's very hard to deem that anyone can be living the latter reality. After all, this governor's literal use of these support points (what we in the business call sound bytes) to convince Americans of his innocence is simply unbelievable. Referring to your plight in even the same sentence as Gandhi or Nelson Mandela's is abhorrent and is also a sure fire way to make people sit up, listen and shake their heads in disgust.

But maybe... just maybe, the governor has actually fooled all of us. What if Blagojevich is simply auditioning on the most visible stage ever for his next career in entertainment? I know, it sounds crazy. The man will (or may) spend time in jail. If this happens, any new career plans will have to wait. We all know that his 15 minutes of fame will soon fade away once he is behind bars. Or will it?

The Illinois Governor will surely be impeached. But, the world is witnessing first hand his outlandish, bizarrely charismatic and beyond wacky personality. Undoubtedly, this will certainly have some appeal to those on the fringes of the entertainment world who are looking for a caricature of the Governor in their commercials, promotions or even movies. (Think of the short term gigs that Tanya Harding and OJ Simpson were handed after their infamous crimes.) After all, we all know that evil is a highly marketable proposition in the entertainment world. People are mesmerized watching it. And, that means $$$.

Yes, in the end, Rod Blagojevich may actually have the last laugh if he parlays his political fall into an entertainment bonanza. Albeit, one has to wonder if his fame is actually sustainable in any way.

Then again, the man might simply be cuckoo.

A minor blotch on an otherwise wonderful day

Any American who cares about freedom and equal rights regardless of race, religion, sex, etc., probably experienced some goose bumps yesterday. After all, an African American man is now our President. And, a dream has come true.

Unfortunately, I was driving to a business meeting yesterday and had to listen to the inaugural events on the radio. Everything I heard seemed so festive and exciting leading up to the swearing in of our 44th President. And then, I listened to the invocation given by the Reverend Rick Warren. His short prayer made me shake my head in great disappointment.

You see, this holy man used the global light that was shining so brightly on his bully pulpit to push out an agenda that had little to do with respecting all Americans. In fact, it ran opposite to Obama's theme of acceptance of all and finding ways to bring people together regardless of religious or political beliefs. No, instead this narrow minded pastor pushed out his two points that should never have been uttered on this magical day: A blessing for Israel and the need to pray to (his lord) Jesus Christ. And, that was just wrong.

Why? Well for one, by allowing this man to do this, it sent a message to millions of American Muslims or others who don't support Israel or have never believed in Jesus Christ, that this administration doesn't really support their views. To do this on a national stage, in front of the world, this new President actually allowed this controversial agenda to be set on his post. And, it greatly conflicted (ironically) with Obama's inaugural speech given just 30 minutes later.

There isn't a preacher in America who wouldn't have mentioned God in this invocation. And, I think that regardless of one's specific belief in religion, Americans everywhere would have been just fine if this prayer were focused on just that word because all of our mainstream religions believe in their own God through their own traditions and prayers. But, praying to Jesus (regardless of what language his name is uttered in)speaks volumes to Jews (who, by the way helped to elect Obama,) Muslims and other non Christian religions in our country. And, as much as I believe in Israel, supporting it like he did, probably more than offended the countless Arab American communities across our country. 

Clearly, by selecting Warren to preside over this time honored prayer, Obama was actually trying to heal wounds with the right wing and bring these two sides closer together (if that is at all possible.) Ironically though, it only served to loosen the binds that are already weak between those other religious groups who wonder whether they will ever get a fair shake in this country that is supposed to now become a beacon of tolerance under a President who has promised so much change.

First MeasuringUP podcast is now online

This week, Sam Ford (our Director of Customer Insights) and I posted our first podcast. The topic focused on politics and brand building and is being launched through Steve and Ted’s RepChatter podcast series. Thank you, Steve.  Future podcasts will be coming soon, and they will be housed on MeasuringUP as well as our PepperDigital blog that Sam contributes to. In the spirit of this chat, I’ve written a post here,   Sam has written on the topic, and we’ve invited other PR bloggers to join in the conversation. You can see posts from Frank X. Shaw, Todd Defren, Talya Bosch, Ted Weismann, Indra Gardiner, and our own Matt Purdue on the topic as well.

A man without a party

Over the last month, it’s become painfully clear that this headline rings true for me. I’m sure many  thousands of other former liberal/moderate republicans now feel the same. This week, in frustration, I decided to write the following email to Senator John McCain to explain how the party’s decision to recast its image and become something that is entirely unrecognizable and uncomfortable has caused me to rethink my views and affiliation with his republican party. My thoughts are below:

Dear Senator McCain,

My wife likes to tell me that I’m now a man without a party. And, for the first time, I’m whole heartedly agreeing with her. And, that is a true shame.

You see, for the last 15 years I’ve called myself a Republican. Like many in the Northeast, a decade ago I felt comfortable having liberal social views, while believing in many of the republican ideals of lower taxes/less spending/less government intervention. My problem is that, today, this party doesn’t stand for most any of these ideals anymore. And, in fact, those with liberal social views (in New Jersey we call these people “Tom Kean Republicans”), have been cast aside and essentially been told by this party that we aren’t wanted any more.

Don’t feel entirely bad. This evolution (pun intended) isn’t even remotely just your fault. Over the last eight years, Bush, Cheney, Rove and the rest of their evangelical crew have done such a tremendous job solidifying their iron-clad, “take it or leave it” beliefs, that you really had little choice but to continue leading this charge to build even greater acceptance of close mindedness and Puritan-like virtues.

Surprisingly, the fact that I can’t identify with this sort of thinking still didn’t push me over the edge to leave your party though. My discomfort with these views was growing stronger. But, I also understand that the U.S. might as well be considered seven or eight mini- countries because the social views are so different and distinct depending upon the geo-economic and cultural conditions that people live in. In my mind, I rationalized (incorrectly) that somehow more socially moderate Republicans would rise again to offer some accepted guidance within this party.

Even though I now doubt that this will happen any time soon, it was your abominable choice for a running mate just a few months back that solidified my Independent standing and caused me to jump head first out of this Republican Party. Quite simply, Sarah Palin represents two things that I simply cannot accept. And, I blame you (entirely) for that:

1.) Joe Six Pack – What happened to those smart, intellectual republicans who used to lead this party and with whom this party identified with? More to the point, when did the Republican Party become one that solely caters to the working class, blue collar man who “supposedly” only cares about being able sit on his couch and drink his “six pack” of beer? Why are small town, working class people the only “real Americans” with real values? By selecting Sarah Palin and having her ride this theme, I believe you have forgotten about and completely alienated hundreds of thousands of republicans who are White Collar professionals. These folks (like me) want to know that their party is intelligent, is thinking about our problems and will represent our interests well once in the White House. Instead, Palin’s rhetoric is transparently insulting to those educated constituents who can’t relate nor believe the messages that we will be better off with her in office. The way she whips crowds into a mob like frenzy by pushing the “us versus them” chant is downright scary because I’m really not sure who “them” is in this case (in fact, I’m starting to think that anyone with a white collar job that is somehow connected to Wall Street is lumped into that general category.)

The bottom line is that the new McCain/Palin Republican Party exponentially increases the separation and animosity between the “haves” versus the “have not’s” that the Bush Administration started eight years ago. This is a flawed strategy that Sarah Palin is very good at executing.

2.) The wrong priority – I really didn’t want to see you pick a religious right wing fanatic as your running mate. But, I might have accepted it if this wasn’t the most important characteristic in your selection and if that person had important experience that our country needs. Sarah Palin’s lack of experience, knowledge (uh…how hard is it to tell the press what you like to read?) and any type of attributes that make her prepared for the President’s job is just plain scary. And, your decisions to choose social/religious beliefs over these vital criteria made me run for the hills. To think that Ms. Palin is a breath away from becoming president should you win our highest office, is truly frightening and (as the media continue to hound you on) demonstrates your poor decision making on an absolutely critical issue.

Senator, I watched the vice presidential debate with complete objectivity. I was hoping that Ms. Palin would should signs of knowledge and that she truly understood the serious issues before her. Instead, I saw a woman who quite literally read from her notes and who wouldn’t answer any questions that were thrown at her. I wish that the moderator would have asked each candidate to rip up their notes at the beginning because I have no doubt that it would have showed the entire country that this woman knows nothing about the real national/global issues that are important.

Senator McCain, this is not my Republican Party any more. For the first time, your decisions have forced hundreds of thousands of Americans (former Republicans) in similar positions to vote for the other guy or simply stay home entirely.  Oh, how you have miscalculated this strategy. To think that some of us will actually prefer to vote for someone as liberal as the democratic nominee versus someone from our own party, says it all.

Sincerely,
Edward Moed

Will Henry become king?

I believe that we are fortunate to have Henry Paulson in charge of this economic disaster, right now. I can only imagine what devastation might have taken place if our current Treasury Secretary was someone who didn't truly understand the way our markets work and lacked the ingenuity and leadership to move quickly with a temporary solution (think about the President's last Secretary and the picture will become clear.)

It seems that Paulson had no other choice than to completely bail out AIG because the alternative might have created the second Great Depression. And, that is unthinkable. And, as he partners with Bernanke on this $700 billion financial services industry rescue, the devil will certainly be in the details of who is helped and how. But, overall, I believe that the general amnesty philosophy behind these actions are needed for the welfare of our economy and livelihoods of Americans. I also hope that a proper balance is struck between allowing so many financial services firm to remain viable, while ensuring that they also still feel some real pain for their failures.

I was feeling pretty good about Henry's over arching strategy until I happened to read one obscure detail (that's a joke) in the actual bill he is proposing. This provision is both amazing and appalling at the same time because it indicates that Mr. Paulson is making one of the largest power grabs in the history of the American economy.

"Change" means not trying to bring back the past

The American economy has always changed. But, one truth that remains constant is that private business (both big and small) is the engine that keeps the "American Way" going. Whether it was in colonial times when businesses were allowed to prosper by going across state lines to sell or create marketplaces, or now when natural forces of globalization are creating competitive conditions to hire jobs beyond country lines.

Understanding this guiding principle, Barack Obama may be for real. But, his change platform has at least one significant economic flaw that has us heading for disaster. Whether he is simply pandering to the lower income masses, or really believes it (which is frightening,) the Senator's cut and dried statements vilifying outsourcing and businesses that do this, is simply wrong on many fronts.

First and foremost, he yearns for America to move forward, become more progressive and lead again with respect in a global world and economy. Then, in the same breath, the candidate condemns all those bad American companies who send tens of thousands of jobs overseas. He claims that these companies are operating in an "anti-American way" because they are leaving our workers without jobs and ways to support their families.

What the Senator fails to discuss (or believe) is that America was created on the capitalistic notion that business owners have the absolute right to build their success as they choose... as long as they play by the rules. And, that is exactly what they are doing.

Lies, Lies and More Lies

MSNBC’s guest yesterday was the editor of the St. Petersburg Times. It seems this newspaper has created a cool new online gauge called the Truth-o-Meter that measures the amount of lies, half-truths and distortions that each presidential candidate (and his camp) is telling about the competitor.

Two of my favorites include: McCain’s absolute lie that Obama wants to increase the size of our federal government by 23 percent (made up using voodoo numbers). And, one attack by Obama and his camp that’s received major media and blog attention is that McCain has voted with George Bush 95 percent of the time. According to the Truth-o-Meter, this is a bold face lie as the Dems have simply distorted numbers. The fact is that in only one year, McCain voted with Bush that often. But, he’s also had years when he only voted with the president 77 percent of the time (very low for a senator in the Republican Party) and on average, votes with Bush about 88 percent (which still falls below the norm).

There's nothing new about one candidate lying about the other's record, views, ethics, etc. That's been happening since John Adams and Thomas Jefferson’s nasty political fight over 200 years ago. What surprised the editor of Politifact.com, however, is how early the lies have started and the ferocity by which they continue.

I should state for the record that I am a Republican. That said, I’m disgusted with both parties and this political presidential theater in general (probably a good reason why I interned in DC in college and never went back). The run for office is complete bullsh*t. Think about how these conventions are being reported on. We constantly hear phrases like: “He really got out his message,” “she is starting to look like a First Lady,” “he’s making an argument why people should believe he’s one of them,” "his image has taken on a new light,” “a strong statement will bridge the gap among these voters,” etc., etc., etc.

These are superficial phrases that have absolutely nothing to do with the issues and promises that our two candidates have made once they get in office. Instead, this entire charade is based upon who can choreograph the most effective image to best serve his need to get elected. And, that’s just wrong (how do you like that…coming from a PR man?). Even when the issues and each guy’s plan are mentioned with any substance (which is good), there is absolutely no mention of my favorite word – accountability.

Take Michelle Obama’s speech the other night. She made two very bold promises about her husband. She said that it’s time that universal healthcare is provided to all and that each and every American needs a better quality education so that they can get through school and go to college. Then, she had the temerity to say that her husband was going to do it. Not that Barack would help move this along, or make a dent. No, she promised that if elected president, he WOULD DO IT.

Sorry, here’s where I stop trying to objectively pound both parties. Democratic candidates have been talking about universal healthcare for over 20 years now. And, they’ve wailed on about changing our education system for the better for more than 40. I, for one, wish it would happen (it would only be a positive for our country). But, Michelle’s comments are one of an idealist talking, not a realist. Listen closely to this one – it ain’t ever gonna happen. And, her promise completely rings hollow. If the Republican Convention were taking place now, I’m sure I’d find something to rip John McCain apart, as well.

Here’s the problem. Promises are made as quickly as presents are handed out at Christmas by both candidates. They will almost say or do anything (that fits the image they need to create among target voters) to get the presidential nod. But, where’s the accountability after the fact? George Bush’s administration has continually lied and stonewalled Americans. Not only have we seen almost no accountability for his actions, but in many cases his top lieutenants have been promoted to higher positions (take Ms. Rice’s nice ascension to Secretary of State as a prime example). It’s simply too easy for any president to say that they couldn’t live up to their promises because Congress blocked them, the other party, the money wasn’t there, or to simply distort the truth to what actually happened. If Obama is elected, I know that will be the case with the two issues his wife so glibly promised he would change.

I’m not naïve (remember I live in the world of image making). The very DNA of politics is to not be held accountable for anything. Some believe that our system is good enough because it weeds out those in office who don’t live up to expectations. They just don’t get reelected. But, we all know that this only happens part of the time. I know it will never come to pass, but I’d love to see the presidential rules changed in the following way. We (the people) hold an official check list of the promises that each candidate makes while campaigning to live in the White House. At the end of the first term, some official body assesses that check list to see which promises were actually realized. If less than 50 percent came true (not a high bar to meet), then that president is not allowed to run for a second term. No questions. He (or she) is done.

This rule would serve to make each candidate think long and hard before any promise is made. That would be a beautiful thing. So, it’s the third night of a presidential convention (doesn’t matter which one). Ugh. Here come the lies…