Digging a Hole

My daughter Lucy, age 6, made a new friend while we were at the beach.  She made it look easy.  She walked up to a boy that I would estimate was 4 years her senior, and stared at him while he dug a hole.  She stood silently staring at him for what seemed to be an eternity, but neither Lucy nor the target of her stares appeared the least bit self-conscious about the invasion of personal space.  Within 5 minutes, they were digging and playing and laughing together.  I don’t know if she had a particularly effective ice breaker technique beyond the staring, but regardless of how she did it, it worked.

She never asked his name, and she didn’t really care.  All she knew was that she had a new friend.

It was nice to remember a time when making friends was that easy.  As we age gracefully, we become more guarded, more self-conscious, more risk adverse, making the exercise of establishing new friendships challenging.  I have often said that the best friends you’ll ever have are made before you graduate from college.  In those heady days of youth, we are less guarded, less self-conscious (at least at parties), and more risk seeking.  This must be the formula for making friends. 

 

That may be the formula, but the older we get, the less we seem to own those ingredients.

  

As I am riding the elevator at work, instead of looking at the ground or the changing floor numbers above the doorway, I think I’ll just stare at the stranger next to me from close range.  Eventually, if I stare long enough, maybe they will be my friend.  It should be that easy.  Unfortunately, it is harder and harder to get past the fear that Lucy’s ice breaker technique will get me escorted from the building by security.  Kids obviously don’t share that same fear, but with time, we’ll teach them. 

 

Ding.  I nod to the person next to me, and mutter, “Have a nice day” as I exit.  This is my floor.  I didn’t ask the other passenger for his name, and I didn’t really care.  I’m a grown up now, so called.

We'll always have Facebook. 

More Blowing Wind

It’s back to normal for most of the East Coast this morning, and time for the GOP candidates hunkered down in Des Moines Iowa this week to recapture the flag of attention.  MSRP has obtained exclusive excerpts from the candidates’ Sunday talk show appearances, and it sounds like they used this forum to deny the science behind Hurricane Irene.

 “See?” said Gov. Rick Perry on Meet the Press.  “We prayed for rain and here it comes, by the bucketful.  If anything, this proves the existence of God.  It certainly does not support the theory of global dryness.  We don’t need no stinkin’ scientists.  All you East Coast liberals need to do is stick your head out a window!  Next question.”

Rick Santorum joined the pile on Face the Nation:  “I’ve seen the memos from meteorologists discussing the potential for “raining cats and dogs”.  When the first Jack Russell terrier hits me on the head, then we’ll talk about the science of weather prognosticating.  Until that day, hurricanes in New York are just a theory.  If I may add, New York could use a good hosing off.”

In a video clip aired on Fox News Sunday, Michelle Bachmann explained to a rapt audience how the Founding Fathers did not mention the weather in the Constitution.  “We know that it was cold in Valley Forge and hot in Philadelphia in the summer of 1776, but other than that, we know very little.  Isn’t it interesting that the Democrats and Barack Obama have shifted the lame stream media focus to the storm clouds when the economy is being hijacked by Chinese right here on the ground?  We’re drowning in debt, and Obama would have Americans evacuate instead of swim!!!”    

Not to be outdone, Herman Cain pandered to the base with renewed energy on CNN’s State of the Union.  “Water is a natural resource, and we need water to live.  How can water and rain be harmful?  That’s real science, my friends.  It is our American birthright to enjoy everything in abundance, and we are not fooled by your fancy charts and Dopplers.  By the way, I have just been notified that your hot and delicious Godfather’s pizza might be delayed more than 30 minutes, so please be patient, especially if you live in the coastal areas of the Carolinas, Virginia, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.”

The Gingrich campaign had no planned appearances and did not issue any statements.  He is on vacation this week.

Ron Paul held a rally attended by 20,000 rabid Iowan supporters, but no press covered the event, so MSRP has no quotes from Rep. Paul as of press time.

Thaddeus McCotter, who will do anything for attention, tried this line of attack on Newsmakers:  “Isn’t it interesting that Obama named all the hurricanes this year after women, in a shameless attempt to pander to men.  I have no doubt that next year in the run up to the 2012 election, he will name all the hurricanes after men to influence the woman’s vote.  The man has no shame.”

Mitt Romney would not allow himself to be accused of leading from behind on this critical wedge issue, so he issued the following statement:  “Hurricane Irene, the most anti-business hurricane in the last thousand years happened on Obama’s watch.  Let’s see him try to blame this one on Bush.  I saw on TV that onerous regulatory agencies across the federal government are forcibly evacuating entrepreneurs from thriving beach communities, thereby crushing innovation.  The selling of sheet lumber and bottled water at a premium price in line with demand is as American as American Idol.  It’s time to take back America!”

Jon Huntsman used the hysteria to brandish his common sense bona fides on Meet the Press:  “I accept the science of hurricanes, and believe that rain is a direct cause of flooding.  I encourage my fellow candidates for the nomination to lift their heads out of the sand and stop acting like idiots.  How am I not winning this thing?”

I found it odd that every candidate missed the real issue:  Hurricane Irene is a shameless media driven attempt to draw sympathy for NYC and represents a manufactured crisis designed to gain support for Obama’s plan to take our guns.  Duh.

Weather or Not

If I was not on vacation this week, I would have written this (as found in today's Washington Post):

Live on the radar: It’s Armageddon!

By Alexandra Petri, Friday, August 26,4:15 PM

I am deeply disturbed by all the alarmist rhetoric on television. Shouting. Chaos. Fear-mongering.
Fox? MSNBC? Amateurs!

I’m talking about the Weather Channel.

John the Baptist had nothing on these people. Only some of the people who heard him repented.

I repented eight times during a single Weather Channel broadcast this week. I was a mere half-hour into my first Weather Channel marathon when I made a will, covered my house in plastic sheeting and started to hoard canned goods.

Since I tuned into the Weather Channel, my outlook on life has been altered. I no longer shop; I stockpile. When indoors, I cower beneath a desk, just to stay in form. Once I went outdoors, but I thought I saw a haboob and rushed back in again. My blood pressure could probably form a pressure front of its own.

I have been watching the Weather Channel for the past 24 hours straight as Hurricane Irene advances up the coast. It was difficult to write from my bunker under a desk, but it was clear from the Storm Tracker coverage that it would have been foolhardy to do otherwise.

If you want to provoke widespread fear and trembling, forget Glenn Beck and cable TV’s talking heads. Find that man in a drenched raincoat who seems to be screaming into gale-force winds at all times.

But there is science behind him. Over the years, our methodology of predicting the weather has evolved. (Unless you are running for the Republican presidential nomination, in which case it might be better to avoid the e-word.)

Once, we predicted the weather by asking Uncle Mort if his knee was doing that thing again. Now, we have Doppler radar, hi-res imaging, computer models and experts who can tell us with absolute certainty that Uncle Mort’s knee is doing that thing again. It’s all the fun of gadgetry combined with the whimsical delight of a game of darts. Most weather forecasts can be boiled down to “Reckon it’ll rain. If not, it won’t,” give or take dozens of apocalyptic adverbs and statistics about how No One Has Seen Anything Like This Since the 1930s.

“It might drizzle” and “Surely we have come unto the end of days!”are two ways of saying generally the same thing.

This could be the hurricane of our lifetime, the Weather Channel intones. That is also what forecasters said about the last hurricane. They’re bound to be right at some point. And in the meantime, it’s ratings gold.

Weather is my one form of continuous fiction. Soap operas require too much suspension of disbelief. Game shows? Not enough lightning. I’d watch “Jersey Shore,” but only because I heard that area will be affected by the recent weather developments.

It’s like politics, but you have to keep fewer names straight, and there is no fear that at some point you will have to discuss the contents of Anthony Weiner’s underwear. And like politics, not knowing anything about it does not preclude forming strong opinions.

As I understand it, all weather is the result of some small event somewhere obscure that gets magnified out of proportion. A butterfly flaps its wings in the Andes, or somebody coughs in Iowa, and soon a storm begins. In politics, we call this process the primaries. The major difference is that the butterfly will eventually have enough sense to stop flapping.

If a butterfly in Iowa flaps its wings and starts a hurricane, it is possible we will get away with a little light property damage and some cows flying off to parts unknown. After the straw polls, we should be so lucky.
In the meantime, it is imperative that we make a lot of noise and sound all the alarm bells.

They say all this shouting is what we need to get people moving to safety. But it’s hard staying this alarmed all the time. Don’t panic! Stay tuned! I can do only one of those at once.

Is it really Worse Than It’s Ever Been? Surely something like this happened in the 1860s. But it’s impossible to tell through all the shouting. Compared with the weather, cable news is a relief. At least those windbags are limited in their capacity.

Maybe it’s the same in politics. Maybe things aren’t worse than ever. Maybe they’re just louder. After all, this is what it takes to get us off the couch.

But who’s getting off the couch? I have to stay tuned to the Weather Channel.


Alexandra Petri writes the ComPost blog at washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost.

I'm back next week! - MSRP

Beer There, Done That

During times of great distress, we talk about “drowning our sorrows” in beer.  During times of great celebration, we toast one another with beer.  Beer is the perfect food for all occasions and situations, much like the GOP views tax cuts.  Both can cure anything, as long as supplied in great quantity.  Unfortunately, only the beer drinkers are correct on this point.  America’s love affair with beer can be summed up by quoting Justin Timberlake, the inventor of the wardrobe malfunction: “Beer never got mad at me because I didn’t call beer back.”  That guy is a regular Ralph Waldo Emerson.

In keeping with the Great American Obsession, there is a new iPhone app that directs you to the nearest beer at the best price.  More discriminating tastes will be impressed by its ability to sort selections by beer brand.  Technology meets Sloth.  Ten years ago, cell phones made calls without the benefit of wires, and that was a good thing.  Now, we have arrived at a point where a sober driver can cause an accident by searching on his phone for cheap beer.  That would be an interesting ticket to receive from Officer Krupke: Distracted while driving by the intent to drink - 30 days in the hole.

Finding the cheapest beer is one way to go, however there are more discriminating connoisseurs of the frothy brew these days.  Beer is the new wine.  I grew up during a time when price was the ultimate judge of quality.  Actually, quantity was synonymous with quality.  In my good ol' days, a fine beer was not judged by its hoppy flavor or its hint of lemon spice.  It was judged by its’ temperature.  Cold beer was the equivalent of 12 year old scotch.  Warm beer was…well, not to be.  Warm beer could be converted to the delicacy of cold beer, but that took time and refrigeration.  Usually only refrigeration is an available resource; time is a luxury that a person who downloads a cheap beer phone app cannot afford.

Beer and its upscale relatives are not to be dismissed solely as a scourge on society.  Au contraire.  Happier nations, as measured by divorce and suicide rates, along with incidences of mental illness, drink more.  Nations with a higher level of education drink more.  Countries with white collar, knowledge-based economies have a higher prevalence of drinking.  It could be that it’s the liberal elites with their preference for “science” and “facts” are the ones putting smiles on all those national faces.  I should read a book on that.

Recently the U.S. was ranked the 56^th most bibulous nation on earth by the World Health Organization, as measured by per capita alcohol consumption.  Clearly, this study ignored the parking lot at the Meadowlands on a warm Sunday in October.  That aside, this low global ranking would explain our recent malaise, dour outlook on the future and the instability in our stock markets.  We just need a few cold ones.  Sounds like a strong campaign theme for someone looking to shake up the weak GOP field.  "Chris Christie for President: We Just Need a Few Cold Ones.”

It is possible, I suppose, that I have this theory backwards.  As Richard Florida in The Atlantic asked, is “happiness the cause of all that boozing, or the effect?”  We may never know, but in the meantime, I have an idea…

Who’s buying?  Have a great weekend.  Here we go...

Smells Like...Victory

“You can’t expense your way to victory.” – John Barreto, Director of Stores, Britches of Georgetowne, circa 1994

Back in my retail days, we had a few down seasons of sales.  Coming to think of it, we had a couple down years.  OK, in retrospect, the business was hemorrhaging year after year until the company finally vanished into the great out-of-season closet in the sky in January 2002, long after I had jumped ship (translation: blame someone else, I wasn’t there).  In an effort to keep the business afloat, we tried everything – clearance sales, buy-one get-one promotions, location consolidations, personnel cuts.  Nothing seems to right the ship.

The most popular strategy from the executives at the time was to attack the company’s largest expense – payroll.  “Do more with less” was not a unique approach, of course.  Every company in America (except Google, perhaps) has faced this marching order at one time or another.  As technology continues to improve productivity, it could be that the “Do more with less” organizational mantra will never cease to be chanted in boardrooms everywhere.  Productivity gains fueled by technological advances seem to have no limit. 

 

Truth be told, there was some fat to be trimmed in our fledgling clothier business, and we learned to look at various expense lines on an hourly basis, particularly payroll.  That was smart business, and it helped sustain us in the short term.  In the long term, it killed us.  The smart business approach of controlling expense costs took on a life of its own over time, and it became all-consuming, to our detriment. 

 

Our Regional Manager at the time, John Barreto, made a statement during a planning meeting that stuck with me: “You can’t expense your way to victory.”  The simple sentiment was that an exclusive focus on the expense side of the ledger was not a strategy to build revenue on the other side of the ledger.  Each expense had to be weighed and evaluated against its contribution to building sales and revenue.  If you ignore tomorrow’s investments, your heroic cost-cutting efforts to save the business today will be wasted. 

 

The narrative that has captured the day in U.S. political circles is that we can expense our way to victory as a nation.  A singular focus, or obsession, with only the spending side of the ledger will result in short-term gains at the expense of long-term viability.  Let the general populace argue about today.  Our leaders need to debate and plan for tomorrow.  That’s how a republic should work. 

 

After the budget cutting frenzy, after the victim is picked clean by the TP sharks, what is the plan for building the U.S. infrastructure to sustain future success in a global marketplace?  I know that thinking about tomorrow is not part of the American psyche when just keeping up with today is a challenge.  Today’s crises have become so all-consuming that daily distractions have been given a positive sounding name – multitasking.  Cognitive dissonance at work!

As one example, futurists see a world where 90% of all U.S. jobs could require a college degree, yet less than 30% of adults in 2008 have their $200,000 sheepskin.  Our choices at that point are stark.  We can dumb down the jobs to fit the available workforce; we could outsource the work to countries that are preparing their population for tomorrow’s jobs; or we could invest in educating our workforce to compete and fill those jobs.  Reasonable minds can debate the best way to accomplish the latter, but to survive as a preeminent power in the world, we have to have this debate.  Our laser-focus on expense cutting while demogoguing any investment in the future as ‘wasteful spending’ is drowning out that debate.  This isn’t a theoretical, elitist classroom exercise.  This has real world implications, and soon.

Just as rural electrification changed the calculus for hundreds of communities around the country, rural broadband access has the same power to grow businesses in these areas.  Tomorrow’s economy will depend on that kind of access.  Will we be ready, or will we wait for private industry to decide to expand broadband once it’s profitable?  That could be too late.

As much as I might have disagreed with him over the years on a variety of issues (like the best way to stagger cashier coverage on a busy back-to-school Saturday), Barreto was right on this one.  You cannot expense your way to victory, and neither can this country.  Let’s be smart about what we choose to cut, and where we choose to invest.  Make no mistake, we still need to cut, but make no mistake, we still need to invest.  Let’s plan for America to last a little longer than my former employer.  Let’s at least have the debate.

At the risk of sounding too partisan, that’s a “balanced approach”.

Hold Your Fire

In 1999, while campaigning for the Democratic nomination for President, Al Gore reportedly claimed during a town hall event in Manchester, NH that he had invented the Internet.  This claim took on a life of its own, and became late night comic fodder from that moment forward.  This alleged remark came to define Al Gore, not because it was true, but because it sounded true.  Gore had been repeatedly accused by his political enemies of playing fast and loose with the facts, and this hyperbole seemed believable in that context.  The tale still has life because at its core, it reflects something about the candidate that voters were trained to believe.

I use the word “alleged” regarding the Internet remark because I know it was twisted from his actual words. 

   

Four years ago, my daughter and I had the pleasure of visiting New Hampshire during the 2008 primary season.  We spent 4 full days visiting campaign offices, attending candidate house parties and town halls, and getting to know the voters in New Hampshire that would shape the contours of that 2008 presidential contest (www.newhampshire2007.blogspot.com). While waiting for one of the candidates to speak, we met a gentleman who was at the Al Gore “I invented the Internet” town hall event 8 years prior.  He laughed as he recounted the event.  He remembered the comment, and said that Gore was specifically talking about his role in the legislation that allowed the Internet to be funded.  Gore never said that he ”invented” the Internet, but never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

 

This past week, during an event in Iowa, Mitt Romney responded to some hecklers in the crowd with the statement, “Corporations are people, my friend.”  The Democratic National Committee jumped on this exchange with voters, and instantly spun it into an attack ad against Romney.  It might work and become the equivalent of the Al Gore “Internet” moment, but I think it’s a mistake.  This comment is being overblown, and it has the potential to backfire. 

 

It is clear to me from watching the clip that Romney was making a legitimate point.  A more artful statement that would have better made his point might have been “Corporations are made up of people, my friend.”  Perhaps I am giving Mitt the benefit of the doubt, but I believe that he was trying to explain that when corporations make money, the employees and stockholders make money; when corporations are taxed, the stockholders (people) are taxed.  That’s a valid point, and one that the far left likes to paint over, to their peril.  In the wake of Citizens United, the Left thinks it has a powerful ‘us against them’ campaign issue that will be particularly effective against the front runner with a documented history as a corporate job destroyer for profit, Mitt Romney.  I think it glosses over the real issue. 

 

Like most candidate quotes out of context, this one nevertheless does reveal some truth that bears discussion.  Mitt’s statement reveals his world economic view.  He is selling a top down strategy – help the top of the pyramid, and the benefits will magically trickle down to the benefit of everyone.  Unfortunately, we’ve seen this movie, and we should not be interested in a sequel. 

  

Corporations, Mitt, should not be equated with people.  They are not interchangeable entities.  Corporations are single-minded in their pursuit of profit, without regard to right and wrong.  Corporations are rewarded for short term gain and punished for long term thinking by the markets.  Is this what motivates people?  Corporations profit at the expense of people, and in Wall Street parlance, people (payroll) represent a company’s largest expense.  Certainly Romney is aware of that formula, and he has most of his wealth to thank for it.  The DNC ads should focus on Romney’s personal wealth strategy of putting people out of jobs.  That’s the legitimate story, not one where the Left is trying to defend that people are not part of corporations.  That’s a loser position in my book.

Unlike the Gore moment, the Romney “corporations are people” imbroglio does have the benefit of being on video, and it is a direct quote.  Like Gore, though, the story is incomplete at best, and deceptive at worst.  I can’t get behind such a cheap attack ad.  Hold Romney accountable for his real actions in corporate America, and forget the phony controversy about “corporations are people”.

On a side note, I would like to point out to my conservative friends where the Dems are focusing their attention.  Romney is the one who scares them.  The Perry and Bachmann attacks ads will write themselves, and rapid response is unnecessary. Future “attack” ads on these two will require a mere recitation of their own printed statements in all their ludicrous and radical glory, and the free press will cover most of these.  The best thing for Obama’s reelection chances is the nomination of Perry or Bachmann.  Radical versus the Rational is a campaign Obama wins. 

 

When the Tea Party pushes a fringe candidate to the top of a ticket, this movie we have seen before.  Think about the self-destructive track record of the Tea Party activists lately.  Harry Reid was vulnerable, but the Tea Party promoted Sharron Angle in Nevada.  Reid won.  The Delaware Senate seat was there for the pickings, but the Tea Party promoted Christine O’Donnell.  That sure GOP seat dissolved in a witch’s brew, and Chris Coons won.  In the NY 26^th race, the same story developed.  Want a Democratic landslide?  Keep nominating candidates who can win the primaries and lose the general.

If the Left can avoid being overanxious and attacking Mitt Romney on a moment’s notice for such a weak and questionable “gaffes” like the one this past week, there will be better and more powerful examples of Mitt Romney defining for America his real self – Tool of the Trickle Downers.

Just wait for it.  Things will get hot when the weather gets cold.   

Ladies and Gentlemen, Start Your Engines!

It has been said that you are what you drive, and I believe that.  The story is told that the car you choose to drive is a tangible expression of your inner personality.  Much like pet owners seems to morph into human copies of their beloved dog or cat, our cars reflect us and in some ways, we reflect our cars.  Sporty, rugged, utilitarian – our cars are us, and we are our cars.  They make important statements about who we are and what we value.  We learn about people and make judgments about people based on what they drive.  More often than not, what we learn by observing the cars people choose to drive is the truth.

I did not always subscribe to this line of reasoning.  For years, I drove a Volvo station wagon, which I viewed as more a statement about my finances and wife’s choices than a statement about my values and personality.  I know that to my conservative friends nothing shouts louder and prouder “Tree Hugging Liberal Elitist” than a late model Volvo wagon, but I can assure you, this characterization misrepresents what I consider to be my fair minded political balance.  For the record, my Volvo did not sport a “Co-Exist” bumper sticker, and I rarely got behind the wheel wearing leather driving gloves or a tweed sports coat (suede elbow patches, of course).  In my Volvo, I believe I was framed, not reflected.

Nevertheless… 

In America, the automobile embodies our national ethos of independence and it defines us as free spirited individuals.  The preeminence of the automobile in American culture makes the study of cars and their drivers uniquely relevant during the presidential nominating season.    I believe that to truly know the candidates, you need to know their cars.   You are what you drive after all.  I set out to collect some data on what the current contenders for the Republican nomination drive on a regular basis.  If I could study the available literature on these cars, I might learn some hidden information about the candidates.  Stump speeches are filled with hyperbole and misdirection.  Car research bulletins from noted consumer publications will provide truth.

Here are the results of my research.  I relied heavily on excerpts from the prestigious Consumer Retorts magazine, which has a history of producing valuable, unbiased ratings on automobiles.  You be the judge: 

 

Micelle Bachmann – Mustang King Cobra (actually, the car is in her husband, Marcus’ name and Mrs. Bachmann is only allowed to drive it with permission)

Nothing screams “Overcompensation!” more than this traditional American muscle car.  What the owner may lack in masculinity, the roar of this baby more than makes up for.  The Mustang is famous for its trademark purr and its ability to get out of the starting blocks quickly, and this model doesn’t disappoint.  To win any race with this fine auto, however, be prepared to pour loads of cash into its engine, which more hype than substance.  Remember, buyer – just because it’s the loudest car doesn’t make it the best car on the lot.  Don’t be fooled by the overblown tales of this legend.  We suspect that the history is mostly created out of thin air to sell more vehicles, and simple fact checking would explode any myths.  We suspect the history is falsified because this model may not be able to deliver the goods.  This car is built for show, and if you aren’t prepared to tinker with it endlessly, it could bankrupt the naïve purchaser.  It offers a sparkling grill and nice headlights, but be advised – the model we sampled did not have a left turn indicator, which can be frustrating to 50% of the other drivers on the road.

Rick Perry – Hummer H3 (no longer in production, much like the owner – they broke the mold after this one)

This colossus is oversized and imposing on the outside, and offers vast amounts of empty space on the inside.  From the looks of it, this guiltless beast could and will run over anything in its path that doesn’t yield.  It is advertised as having the ability to go from a standing stop to top speed and performance almost instantly; however, if you know anything about how these babies work, you’ll realize that it takes time to work out the kinks and find the correct driving rhythm.  It is best to anticipate that minor repairs and recalibrations will be required during the first few months of ownership.  The models we tested offered Yosemite Sam “Back Off” mud flaps and a St. Christopher style GPS, both standard.  One of the more troubling features was its lack of a rearview mirror.  It is obvious that this car has no interest in backing up or looking backwards.  We believe that a rearview mirror might provide the driver with perspective when traveling, but this car’s ego will not allow it.  The complimentary gun rack is hard mounted to the frame and cannot be removed.  This Hummer runs exclusively on crude oil, so the exhaust output is dirty.  We found this juggernaut hard to maneuver in tight situations.  The car pulls hard to the right and at high speeds, and that is a recipe for disaster.  We pray for anyone in its path.

Ron Paul – Harley Davidson Fat Boy motorcycle

You may be tempted to give in to your inner isolationist on this one-of-a-kind ride.  Our issue with this motorcycle has not changed over the years.  We realize that everyone fantasizes about owning one, until they become aware that this ride doesn’t prepare you adequately for all conditions.  All it would take would be one patch of sand, one bull or bear running into the road, and the limitations of this ride would become painfully obvious.  Unfortunately, it would be too late at that point.  We recommend this mode of transport remain safely in the showroom and out of your garage, before someone, like you or someone you love, gets hurt.  This dream machine comes in one color: gold - standard.  This ride is a great choice in theory, but not recommended in reality.

Newt Gingrich – Infiniti G Sedan

What can you say about this car?  Its most distinctive feature may be the oversized spare tire and the large seat.  The few buyers we spoke with liked the onboard computer, arguing that it is the smartest car on the road.  Our tests showed a remarkable lack of memory, however, which causes the outputs of the dashboard to be contradictory and condescending at best.  The speedometer, in particular, seems more attuned to the prevailing winds outside than the actual speed of the car.  This leaves the owner wondering where this car is really going.  You may be impressed by the Tiffany encrusted steering wheel, but what the manufacturer won’t tell you is that the steering can be controlled by the passenger!  That may sound fun, until you consider what would happen if your spouse was in the passenger seat and controlled the direction of the car.  What if she wanted to drive you right into a ditch?  We’ve seen it happen.  The poor acceleration and ability to maintain road traction in challenging conditions was a big disappointment.  Comes in all colors, except blacks.

Sarah Palin – GMC Yukon

This baby is hard not to notice when it sneaks up behind you on the road traveling at full speed.  Despite its size, it is quite fast on the highway, although it has surprisingly little towing capacity.  You would think a vehicle that powerful would be able to pull others along with it, but it is designed to run light.  As you would expect, the Yukon has plenty of room for all of your personal baggage.  Safety first with the Yukon – be sure to check out those air bags up front.  These generously sized bags are designed for safety, but also for comfort.  We searched, but could not find any climate controls within the vehicle.  The manufacturer recommends rolling down the windows for a breath of air from the natural world, but we were overcome with the prodigious exhaust fumes when we tried that.  The Yukon has always been a popular model, but if you are honest and drive it once, you will agree that its limitations far outweigh its upside.  This is definitely not something built for the long haul.  The model we test drove did not have passenger or driver’s side mirrors, so we ran over anything that appeared to our left and our right.  The good news was that we didn’t feel a thing as we rolled over these obstacles.  One more benefit - turn on those enormous fog lights on the top of the cab, and you’ll be able to see your house from anywhere!

Herman Cain – Nissan Sentra

Unless you are buying a car for your second career as a pizza delivery driver, we recommend you pass on this model.  The literature on the Sentra says one thing, but the reality is truly another.  It praises its own ability to simplify the car ownership experience (the owner’s manual is only 3 pages long), but three pages doesn’t allow the driver to know how to change a tire, turn on the radio, or even how to accelerate or brake.  Simplicity will sell some cars, but it won’t help you drive.  The engine runs so loud at times that it is hard to hear yourself think when inside the vehicle, and we suspect that is intentional.  The less you think, the better and more attractive this option seems.  Steering is free and easy, except in the direction of Mecca.  If inadvertently pointed in that direction, the car stalls.  Interior seat covers are available in all fabric types, except muslin.  This car doesn’t want any muslin.

Thaddeus McCotter – Horseback (With a name like “Thaddeus McCotter”, what would you expect?  Didn’t he run as Rutherford B. Hayes’ running mate?)

Mitt Romney – Lexus LS

This luxury sedan is trying too hard to be all things to all buyers.  It is business car?  Is it a family car?  Is it casual or formal?  No one knows what this vehicle stands for, which puts off many potential purchasers.  It offers utilitarian styling on the outside, but inside, it is all high society, from the gold plated dashboard to the silver gray highlights on the edges of the interior.  During our test drive, the car pulled left at first, then without warning, it started pulling to the right.  It was as if the car had a mind of its’ own, but of course, that’s impossible.  A car can’t think by itself!  The GPS, in particular, was most annoying.  It would wait until a turn was completely executed before declaring “Turn now”.  If you didn’t know better, you’d think the car was more afraid of steering you wrong than getting you to the programmed destination.  We found the car sluggish and not effective in warm climates, like South Carolina and Georgia.  It performed much better in the cooler climate, like New Hampshire and Utah.  This could change over time, once the engine gets more mileage under its belt.  Its climate controls are confusing and contradictory, leaving all passengers too warm or too cold.  We couldn’t tell.  All in all, we believe that this Lexus is a product of slick marketing, but little substance.

Jon Huntsman – Volvo S60 Sedan

This brand screams “Safety” at every turn.  Unfortunately for the makers, while safety should be a key consideration in such a purchase, the lack of sex appeal tends to push away the would-be buyers.  If you want a vehicle that will stand up to the pressures of the road on a daily basis, we suggest that you reconsider this traditional model.  Its focus on fuel efficiency detracts from its potential for high performance.  The car is built for smooth highway driving, so we must question whether it has the adequate suspension to absorb unexpected potholes and uneven terrain.  Like some of the other models we reviewed, it comes with a standard gun rack, but unlike the other models, this one is more easily removed.  It was refreshing to find that its climate controls were functional and easy to understand.  The manufacturer might consider installing a new horn that actually gets the attention of others on the road.  The existing honk is more of a tap on the shoulder than an urgent warning.  This model is no longer available in the color that made the brand famous, Red China, but it does offer an updated Red State Red shade that is exciting.

    

 Tim Pawlenty – No longer drives any car.  Willing to ride shotgun with someone else. 

 

At the end of my research, the conclusion is clear: You are what you drive.  Be sure the next car you buy doesn’t turn out to be a lemon.