My Endorsement For President Is ...
By Robert Faletra
 The last time I remotely touched on politics in this column I received a boatload of angry responses from individuals, several of whom canceled subscriptions and scolded me for not sticking to business.
The reality is we don't endorse candidates here for good reason: It wouldn't matter a hoot if we did. It's preposterous to think an endorsement by any publication, including that bastion of liberalism The New York Times or its conservative competitor The Wall Street Journal, is going to sway votes.
And while I know who I'm voting for, I'm not convinced—nor certain—which of these two tickets would be better for the economy or high-tech sales.
If you buy John Chambers' argument, then it's John McCain, whom he has supported for months. But there are just as many high-tech execs who lean toward the liberal side of the spectrum and are convinced that Barack Obama is the way to go. The problem is that most people vote by their pocketbook in the end, but it's the issue of which candidate would be better for IT or the economy that tends to be least discussed—largely because the mainstream press finds it boring.
But this is a particularly critical issue in this election. The economy has been balancing between dipping to a recession and growing modestly for months now. Energy costs are both a homeland security and an economic issue. Information technology is more than 50 percent of capital expenditures in North America.
What we all need to begin demanding is a look into whom these candidates intend to appoint to cabinet
positions. Let's face it, the president makes decisions based on information fed from close advisers who make recommendations and argue in favor of their position. No single individual can have a deep understanding of every issue to make an informed decision, philosophical leanings aside. In the end, it's the people who surround any leader that have great influence within that adviser's sphere of expertise. We don't know where these candidates fall on a lot of issues because they don't know yet.
The last time any candidate running for a first term didn't say they were a "change agent" was never. It's such an overused term it makes me laugh whenever I hear it.
The scary thing is that in two months, we are all going to go into the voting booth and pull the lever for someone we don't really know will be best for the economy and the high-tech industry. We might feel good about it, but this is as always as much of a crapshoot as loading a new operating system on an old PC.
Are you tired, too, of hearing the term 'change agents'? |