Yesterday a client came to me with an old shotgun. It was in shooting condition but someone had painted it with black paint and done a poor job of it. The paint was so thick that the maker’s name, serial number, etc could not be read! My client wanted me to look at it and advise him as to what it would cost to restore it.
I only took 10 minutes of scraping paint to find that it was a very inexpensive mail order shotgun that had NO collector value what so ever. In fact it wasnt even worth what the metal it was made of would bring. But it was a good home defense weapon.
I called him to tell him that I advised, to not “waste money having me restore it, just clean it up, oil it, and set it beside the door for two-legged rats.” I told him any money he gave me to work on it would never be recoverable. My wife commented as I hung up the phone, “you just cost yourself a restoration job.” And my response was, “But, I now have a client that will trust me.”
Trust is important in business. If you always look at the bottom line without worrying about what the moral path would be, you will lose trust and your business will suffer. This also applies to a country and its politicians.
I thought about this and our current slate of presidential candidates.
There are now five out there when you include the current president. All are different in their approach to gathering “trust” from the voters.
Obama, the top of the list because he is already there, is fast loosing trust. His plan is to tell any lie that he thinks will bring him a vote. Promise anything that may bring in a vote. An example, We will try “all of the above” to get fuel prices down. Now what the hell does that mean? He has no idea what it means but he thinks it will bring in a vote or two while not alienating his liberal base. If we don’t know what “all of the above” means, how can we be against it. Maybe I should ask that differently, If we dont know what “all of the above” means, how can we be for it? Oh, I know, we can be for it before we are against it. We can vote for it so we can see what is in it. There is NO trust in “any of the above”.
Then there is the other end of the spectrum, Ron Paul. Ron is absolutely certain that what he proposes is the best way forward. I trust him completely. What he says, he believes. It may not be what I believe, but he believes it. It may be the truth, but the electorate doesn’t really want to hear the truth, they would rather be lied to. 80% of the voters want someone to just solve the problems and don’t involve them in the solution. Ron Pauls solution will involve everyone. The other 20% want the truth. You cannot win an election with only 20% of the voters. All the trust in the world wont help if the trustees are not the majority of the vote.
Then there is Rick Santorum, unfortunately he isn’t running in the same election everyone else is. He is running in an election where social issues and morality prevail. Where the most important issues are Internet porn and whether Puerto Ricans speak English or not. In the election he is running in, unemployment, the economy, and foreign relations have just minimal value. Now, I happen to believe that all presidents should have a religion, almost any religion, because religion sets moral standards for its followers. But when the religion becomes the campaign then they are missing the point. Who would have though that we would be talking about Santorums religion and not Mitt Romneys. Can we trust Santorum. sure we can, but to do what? Will he get us into church each week, maybe. But will the economy improve, will the troops get out of where they shouldnt be, will anyone have a job?
Speaking of Mitt, here is a candidate that offers something for everyone. He is a business man, and probably a trust-able business man, and he claims he is not a politician. How can you be a governor of a state and NOT BE a politician? Of course he is a politician. But that isn’t ALWAYS bad, but usually it is. Mitts problem is that he is like Obama in that he will say anything to get a vote. It’s not the problem that he will say anything so much as, that after being elected, can we trust him to DO anything. I am not sure his brain is very deep. Trust for him is also shallow.
Last but not least is Gingrich. I would have loved to have seen Newt debate Obama. It would have been a slaughter. Newt would have moped the floor with Obama in a debate. But alas, it will never be. Obama isn’t smart, but he is smart enough to avoid a debate with Newt. The problem with Gingrich is that he is far too stubborn. He cannot see the handwriting in the wall. But I understand his stubbornness. He is getting old and this is his last run for the presidency. He is afraid if he quits now, there will be no next time. But he is burning money that would be better put to the National campaign in the general election for the eventual nominee, which we all know will be Mitt Romney. If you don’t know this, you are delusional.
Why will Mitt win the primary? Because we all want Obama OUT. And we will “sup with the devil” if it will remove Obama from office. Mit will draw the moderate votes as well as the conservative votes and, thus, will win the Presidency in 2012. We know that as untrustworthy as Mitt is, he will be a far better president that four more years of Obama.
Any of the Republican candidates would be a better president that Obama. Jimmy Carter would be a better president than Obama. Hell, even Billy would be better! I long for the good old days when I was worried that Hillary might be president.