Whatever it takes to win means ... hyperbole

Back in 2000, it was tiring to listen to Al Gore talk in great detail about each and every policy.  It was clear that the man knew policy, but being intellectually capable and having a firm grip on the details is not what wins elections.  Which is why Bush won, despite his goofy "what, me worry?" approach to everything.

This time around, Hillary Clinton plays that policy detail game to a lot more boring detail than Gore did.  The Republican candidates couldn't care about policies.  And then there is Bernie Sanders.  His stump speeches are great, no doubt.  But, he ain't the candidate that Obama was back in 2008.  Obama could become professorial and lecture about policies too.  Sanders flubs.  And there is one person who is really ticked off: Jeffrey R. Immelt, who is the big boss at General Electric (GE).  Immelt is pissed off at Sanders for his propagandaish GE is “destroying the moral fabric” of America demagoguery:

GE has been in business for 124 years, and we’ve never been a big hit with socialists. We create wealth and jobs, instead of just calling for them in speeches. We take risks, invest, innovate and produce in ways that today sustain 125,000 U.S. jobs. Our engineers innovate every day to build hardware and software solutions that meet real-world challenges. Our employees are proud of our company. I meet second- and third-generation employees whenever I travel across the country. I am one myself. Our suppliers and partners are proud of our company. Our communities are proud of our company. Our pride, history and hard work are real — the moral fabric of America.

Sanders' hyperbole on GE versus Immelt's evidence-based rebuttal.  You think that the "feel the Bern" fans care about evidence?

Immelt continues:

The senator has never bothered to stop by our aviation plant in Rutland, Vt. We’ve been investing heavily (some $100 million in recent years), hiring and turning out some of the world’s finest jet-engine components in Vermont since the 1950s. The plant employs more than 1,000 people who are very good at what they do. It’s a picture of first-rate jobs with high wages, advanced manufacturing in a vital industry — how things look when American workers are competing and winning — and Vermont’s junior senator is always welcome to come by for a tour.

Burn!  (get the pun? hehe)

Sanders refuted this and claimed that he has been there.  The fact-checkers got on to it:

As a factual matter, Sanders clearly has not visited the plant or taken a tour since he became senator nine years ago. Sanders bluntly accused Immelt of “not telling the truth,” saying he had visited the plant “years ago.” But that sidesteps the point that Immelt was making — that the company has invested tens of millions of dollars to modernize the facility and yet Sanders has not bothered to see the improvements. His posture stands in contrast to other members of the Vermont delegation who have been repeat visitors to the facility during Sanders’s Senate tenure.
In bluntly dismissing Immelt’s statement as a lie, Sanders misleadingly led viewers to believe he had an open-and-shut case. But the reality is more complex.

"misleadingly led viewers to believe" is what this election is all about.  It was what the elections in 2000 and 2004 were also about.  Come to think of it, we should be surprised that two eggheads with a fine grasp of details--Bill Clinton and Barack Obama--managed to not only win but even get re-elected!

What pisses me--keep in mind that unlike the frequent commenter/debater here, I am no rah-rah GE fanatic--is that Sanders criticizes that GE is destroying the moral fabric of America and then turns around and gives the most evil corporation a pass in his interview with the NY Daily News:

Daily News: For example, in corporate America, Apple happens to be celebrating, today, its 40th birthday. It's a company that grew from nothing to 115,000 permanent employees. And I'm wondering, is Apple destroying the fabric of America?
Bernie Sanders: No, Apple is not destroying the fabric of America. But I do wish they'd be manufacturing some of their devices, here, in the United States rather than in China. And I do wish that they would not be trying to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

Of course, exactly like what any liberal would!  WTF!

With every passing day, the American presidential campaign is becoming a farce that can compete against the farcical political theatre that I witnessed back in the home state in the old country.  The theatrics were far better there thanks to the explicit roots in the entertainment industry!  Surely America can do better than this!

Source

The American political hysteria over outsourcing. Pathetic!

Not that American political discussions have been spectacularly impressive the last few years ... the latest one is a wonderful addition to the list of idiotic things our politicians cook up:

senators will consider would impose tax increases on corporations that shift operations overseas, costing U.S. jobs.

So, why this now?

Democrats view the outsourcing issue as a big winner with voters because it speaks to the heavy manufacturing job losses that have devastated communities in Midwest and East Coast industrial states.
"There is no issue more important to the American people than the outsourcing of jobs, and that's why we're focusing on it," said Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), a member of Senate Democratic leadership.

Ok, let us look at this logic, and the jobs in manufacturing. We want to manufacture for the domestic and external markets, right?  We are happy when we export, say, Caterpillar trucks or Boeing planes, correct?  You with me?

Suppose India imports Boeing planes. And it does.  Does it not mean that India has then "outsourced" to America all those jobs related to the manufacture of planes?  Hasn't pretty much the entire world "outsourced" to America (Microsoft) many of the jobs that then give us the various products from that company?

Global economy means that there is enormous give and take--we give others what we are good at, and take from them what they are good at. If certain manufacturing jobs have been lost, it is simply because there are a number of other countries who have gotten to be much better than us on that widget.  The problem is not that "they" have taken "our" jobs, but is a different one of figuring out what we can do and export to get access to their wallets.

This demagoguery six weeks prior to the election will further chip away the relationship that took years to build, with India in particular:

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh visited Washington and, thanking President George W. Bush for pushing a landmark civilian nuclear deal between the two countries, told him that the “people of India deeply love you.”
Recent months have witnessed something of a cooling in that ardor. A series of events have contributed to the impression that the relationship is going through tough times.
In August, the civilian nuclear deal, a symbol of the two countries’ new closeness, came under strain when the Indian Parliament passed a bill that would increase the potential liability of nuclear plant operators. The United States expressed its concern and asked India to change aspects of the bill.
Also in August, the U.S. Senate passed a bill that hiked fees for the H1-B and L visa categories used by skilled Indian technology workers. Indians were incensed by Senator Charles Schumer’s characterization, during debate over the bill, of Indian businesses as “chop shops.” (He later clarified that he meant to say “body shops.”)
Then, earlier this month, Ohio’s state government announced a ban on the outsourcing of state technology projects to offshore centers.

 In fact, even before this Senate bill, there have been irate responses in the Indian media to Ohio's decision. The diplomat-speak is, of course, polite and tactful, but the emotion underneath is all too visible:

Describing the State of Ohio's ban on offshore outsourcing by government departments as ‘ill-advised', India has ‘firmly' conveyed to the U.S. its displeasure over the move and other protectionist measures such as the hike in visa fees for professionals.
“We have put it firmly in our discussions. I feel that the U.S. has seriously registered India's viewpoint as well as concerns of the Indian IT industry. We do hope there will be timely and appropriate responses,” Indian Commerce and Industry Minister Anand Sharma told reporters here on Tuesday ....
Citing the example of the recent Airtel-IBM deal, Mr. Sharma turned the table on the U.S., stating, “Airtel, an Indian company, has placed orders of $3.5 billion on IBM. Isn't that outsourcing? Where would those jobs be created? Where (would) those jobs would be supported?”
The largest orders for Boeing aircraft had also been placed by India. “How many jobs would have been sustained and how many jobs would be created?,” he asked.

If Republicans can be stupid on some issues, then Democrats ensure that they can be equally moronic, and up the ante!  I wish we could outsource the politicians' jobs!!!

A wonderfully ironic backdrop to these Senatorial pontifications?  Yesterday, NBC premiered its sitcom, Outsourced :)



Update: A history professor, writing in the Oregonian, finds fault, not with the Republicans, nor the Democrats, nor the Wall Street speculators, but "globalization":

Unless we have the courage and foresight to examine the significant problems of our national economy, a decade from now we may still be trying to stimulate a sluggish economy. In the 1980s Latin America suffered the "lost decade." It had zero economic growth and widespread social upheaval. If we don't seriously examine our economy and revise the WTO, we may face a similar decade.

Why does he compare the US with Latin American countries?  At least a comparison with Japan's experience the last few years makes sense--comparing two advanced economies, with a reliance on international trade. But, with Latin America?  Come on, we have not become a banana republic, and are far from that.

Outsourcing: The Onion explains why

Hey, they included "cricket" in the list :)