Uncategorized

Kevin Moore

“Victory has a thousand fathers, defeat is an orphan,” –John F. Kennedy

Here it comes. The biggest, baddest sports spectacular in the United States of America.  Super Bowl L–that is L as in roman numeral 50 and “L”as in “L”ove it–is an unofficial national holiday.  This is an extravaganza and event so special that it dwarfs all other sporting events.

It started with a vision, a letter and a personal visit.  Former Santa Clara Vice-Mayor Kevin Moore, a sports enthusiast, wrote a letter to the 49ers describing his idea to build a new stadium in Santa Clara. It was a Hail Mary, but the 49ers were already headquartered in Santa Clara, the land was available, the weather is outstanding, the infrastructure and transit options first class, and Candlestick Park was a deteriorating joke.

Moore hand delivered his idea to the 49er headquarters. The missive was taken upstairs to 49er executive Larry MacNeil, who is currently the executive director of development.  Thus began the odyssey that culminated in the new 49ers stadium in Santa Clara.

Soon meetings with John York, who played a pivotal role in the effort, became initial negotiations with the City of Santa Clara, whose city manager Jennifer Sparacino was initially skeptical of the plan. When the younger, charismatic Jed York took the reigns; the project picked-up momentum. Jed York is a nonpretentious, optimistic figure who understands the 49er history and was willing to go to peoples houses individually to garner support.

During this time, Moore became the go to guy in helping communicate policy and political support for the project; often using shuttle diplomacy between the 49er executives and his city’s administration, careful not to over-step his role.

Moore next came up with the idea to take Commissioner Roger Goodell and top NFL executives up on the sky tower ride at California’s Great America Amusement Park. He enlisted Mayor Patty Mahan to guide the tour and Mahan extolled the virtues of Santa Clara, including the existing infrastructure and transportation, and the day was absolute magic!  Moore,  Mahan, along with Councilwoman Lisa Gillmor became the trinty of the stadium project, acting in unison to provide the political validation necessary for success.

Moore is a very competitive person.  He is not above playing hard ball in a political campaign to win. He has upset a few people in his career, but he is also a person who puts down the gloves after a political fight and will work with anybody who will help improve Santa Clara, or for that matter, the community at large.

He enlisted his other friends on the council including Jamie Matthews and Pat Kolstad to build a solid majority for success. They were enthusiastic and are natural allies of Moore.  But Moore also reached out to his past political opponents, former council members John McLemore and Aldyth Parle became supporters despite differences from past political campaigns.

His close allies sometimes gave him grief for reaching out to past political opponents. But Moore put the interests of the stadium first.   He got Chris Stampolis and Jim Rowen, who are currently in the middle of a lawsuit, on board.  He made the strong recommendation to bring on political constituent Ed McGovern who brilliantly guided the 49ers through the election.  He also recommended Jude Barry, Peter Allen and Rich Robinson all of whom contributed to the victory.

He couldn’t convince everybody, but he tried. Two colleagues rebuffed him, but even with their instranigence he continued to reach out asking,  “how can we bring them aboard, is there a win-win deal we can work?”

Only after he realized they would never support the project, did he steamroll them politically.  In addition, the Southbay Labor Council, the Chamber of Commerce crowd, the Mercury News, the Metro and the Silicon Valley Leadership Group supported the effort.

Once the stadium was a foregone conclusion, the next collaborative effort went forward in a bid for Super Bowl. Mayors Ed Lee, Jamie Mathews, Chuck Reed and Jean Quan checked their cities egos at the door and worked together to bring the Super Bowl to the Bay Area.  United in their effort for the region, it was a huge juxtaposition from the other contender, Miami, which failed to garner the necessary political support from their state legislature.

Now we are getting a Super Bowl in San Francisco and Santa Clara and San Jose and Oakland; for the event will lift all of these cities and the entire region.  It is a model of what can happen when people come together for the benefit of all.

It is also the tale of one man’s vision and how he worked behind the scenes to make it a reality. Sometimes the Hail Mary works.

“If at first you don’t succeed, try again.  Then quit, no use being a damn fool about it.”–Winston Churchill

In our business we dream of the perfect candidate.   The right person, at the right time, with resources to win and the perfect fit for the populace and the times.  Barack Obama in President 2008, Jerry Brown Governor  in 2010, Willie Brown for San Francisco Mayor 1995, and Sheriff Laurie Smith for San Jose Mayor 2014.

Only the last scenario won’t happen.  Even as the compelling case is put before her, she laughs.  “Why would I give up the best job in the world to take on that nightmare?” she asks emphatically.

“Because you are the person who can bring this city back together,” comes the lame answer.

The reasons for a Smith candidacy are compelling. A strong woman administrator with  a solid base of support from both business and labor, a down-to-earth personality, a record of taking on a formerly demoralized and ridiculed department and making it the premier law enforcement agency in the county.

Politically her numbers are off the charts; she  has high name identification, especially compared to those who would run against her and her image rating surpasses everyone in the county as it is a lofty 5 to 1 positive. Image ratings are determined by the ratio of people who view a person positively versus those who view them negatively.

Those numbers would not only make her candidacy viable, she would be the immediate front-runner in the race.

Most importantly, with crime rising, with a devastated emergency services problem, a severe public employee morale problem and a divided city; she has the capacity to bring all the major parties of interest together to move San Jose forward.

Where once people with large egos worked together for the best interest of the residents, in a town that produced Norm Mineta, Mike Honda, Zoe Lofgren, Janet Gray Hayes, Tom McEnery, Susan Hammer, and Susie Wilson–our current crop of leaders seem wholly inadequate to the challenge.

This should not be taken as a total complete dismissal of the current crop of candidates, one of them could rise beyond the petty personal politics that currently dominate our local culture but none have that cache yet. Smith already has it and could make use of it the day she takes office.

Moreover all the announced candidates are from a Council that has staked its entire legacy on a flawed premise. There is little hope the much heralded pension reform will withstand a court challenge. All of this turmoil will be for naught. We will be going back to square one; with only rising crime, devastated city services and divided politics to show for the effort.

We need a mayor who is not part of the problem and can provide real solutions.

That can only happen with a leader who doesn’t worry too much about their ego and has credibility with all the major interests.  We need a leader who can navigate the politics with persistence and put the people’s agenda ahead of personal political ambition.

The simple fact that Smith won’t run, doesn’t need the job and has no higher political ambition outside the county is one of the main reasons she would not only win–but could govern. One only need look North to San Francisco’s Mayor Ed Lee and see how effective that management style is for success.

At one point in the conversation she does get animated, “Boy, that police department really needs some help.”

“It will take five years to rebuild that department.” she adds in a matter of fact tone.

But Mayor Reed and his political inner circle would never offer her that job, even with her record of turning the Sheriff’s department around.   And she would not likely accept unless she was given a guaranteed five year contact and a free hand to do what is necessary.   Besides, why would she give up the best job in the world to take on that nightmare?

I give up, no use being a damn fool.

Jack Nicholson in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

The Sunnyvale City Council recently censured their colleague Patrick Meyering for his paranoid and shrill public attacks on city staff, the Sunnyvale public and fellow councilmembers. Cupertino City Councilmember Barry Chang threatened a county employee, exhibits uncontrolled anger and has made embarrassing and false accusations of people lying.   He was admonished in a letter from the County Executive, Jeff Smith. George Shirakawa recently resigned after acknowledging a gambling addiction.

Other local elected officials in public life also show signs of unstable and unacceptable behavior. Former Eastside Union High School District Trustee Patricia Martinez Roach has long had anger issues according to colleagues, West Valley-Mission College Trustee Chris Stampolis was caught on tape badgering a Los Angeles area storage clerk and Debbie Giordino of Milpitas was caught on tape ripping off her ex-husband’s mailbox.

All of these extreme actions indicate people dealing with mental health related issues. That does not mean they are all mentally ill. Then again, the absence of a diagnosis is not the same as being “not sick”. Certainly, everyone has issues they must deal with in life.  But in the case of Meyering, Chang and, admittedly, Shirakawa the repetitive instances of unacceptable, over-the-top behavior needs to be addressed by professionals.

For people in power with mental health issues, there needs to be a process that can identify the problem and provide real treatment.

While government bodies can censure a colleague, as in the case with Meyering, such actions are limited in scope and effect.  Moreover, such resolutions embolden other less than mentally healthy people in the community–derogatorily referred to as the “tin hat” crowd—whose chaotic messages only exacerbate the problem.  At least one in Sunnyvale announced his intention to run for political office.

Another major effect of allowing the behavior to persist is the effect it has on the other Council-members and potential future leaders.  In Cupertino, not a single qualified person will run for City Council because no one wants to sit through a meeting with Barry Chang. The result is second-rate elected officials, of which Cupertino has quite a few—(apologies to Orin Mahoney.)  This is especially relevant because the best company in the world, Apple, is headquartered in the Cupertino. And Apple must go through the city to process to build its state of the art headquarters.

Thus the late Steve Jobs was subjected to an inane question of what he thought of a cement plant in the Cupertino hills; the obsessive, compulsive cause of the clearly hostile Barry Chang.   It was embarrassing for all involved.

This is not about disagreement or simple political rivalry. This is about the inability to distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate behavior, the inability to control one’s mood swings and the uncontrollable, unreasonable, intimidating, vicious remarks one makes from a position of power.

During the Meyering debacle, Sunnyvale City Councilman Christopher Moylan gave among the most articulate and reasoned statements in support of the censure motion against his colleague Meyering.  He cited chapter and verse the incidents that brought the Council to act. He described in detail the difference between reasoned debate and inappropriate behavior.

He noted strong disagreements occur, that is part of our political system.  However, intimidation of opponents, challenging one’s integrity without facts, lying, making false charges, producing a hostile atmosphere for the staff and Sunnyvale public is unacceptable.

Officials who engage in that behavior must be reprimanded under the rules of the Council–the one thing he left out was; Meyering seemingly needs professional help.

Meyering, like Chang, would benefit from a full mental examination, a proper diagnosis and effective treatment. It may be they each have an undiagnosed disease that can, with proper drugs and therapy, arrest their extreme behavior.  If that is the case, they should get that help they need so they can be effective advocates for their political views.   In any case, a thorough examination would put the matter to rest.

If they were declared mentally healthy, at least a good therapist could help them recognize their actions undermine their own credibility and reduce the stature of their respective cities.

Nearly everyone knows somebody who has a mental illness and it should not be a barrier to employment or even public office.  But if it exists, it must be diagnosed and treated.   For these public outbursts of hostility are very damaging.

Of course, if they choose to deny their condition they should move to South Carolina and run for Congress. It worked for Mark Sanford.

There once was a politician from the Midwest who never attended law school or even graduated from high school, but he claimed to be a lawyer. His main advisor was a well-known alcoholic, his wife was found to have used public monies on frivolous personal items, and he was known to be crude and lacked even basic manners for public office.

Another leader never held a job, survived on the welfare system and was involved in a highly publicized scandal with a prostitute. He was also seen in the company of the worst criminals. He was, admittedly, soft on crime and showed a violent temper when he took on the bankers of his community.

Who would support such people? Well, the first individual was Abraham Lincoln and the second was Jesus.

This brings us to the need for voters to look at the whole picture, which includes human frailty, negative campaigns and push polls.

Recently, a poll funded by county supervisor candidate Teresa Alvarado ran a series of questions testing the “negatives” of Cindy Chavez. This is typical of pollsters in all races, but the push poll often telegraphs the messaging a candidate intends to use.

The problem, of course, is that the questions are asked without context and in a way that is designed to influence, absent any other knowledge.

For example: “Are you much more likely, more likely, less likely or far less likely to vote for a candidate who claims to be a lawyer, but who never even finished high school?” Abe Lincoln would have been screwed.

The question is designed not only to measure how much that information is likely to influence voters, but the intensity a voter would feel about the information.

The pollster assumes this question will elicit a negative response from voters and is gaging whether that message will resonate in relation to other negative messages being tested.

But, when a question is asked in isolation, it does not provide the voter the proper context of a candidate’s background or past decisions they may have made. If the public already knows the candidate, the information may not have the same impact as it would on an unknown candidate.

In addition, when the poll question goes out to the public, it telegraphs potential negative messages that a campaign will use against the opposition. The Chavez camp is now preparing for an assault on its candidate, based on the questions used in the poll.

However, the campaign game has changed.

Negative campaigns used to be most effective when they were used at the last minute; when the candidate who was attacked did not have time to respond. With absentee balloting and votes taking place over a month instead of a single day, a successful negative campaign must be continuous and effective for an entire month.

In fact, the best negative campaign you can run is to say that your opponent is running a negative campaign. But there will be a backlash from voters. The person who fires first often loses in a highly contested race, as the public is suspicious and less tolerant of negative information.

Finally, no candidate for public office is perfect. Even Jesus and Abraham Lincoln can be attacked politically using the opposition research we have on them. Jesus’ support for the poor alone would cost him the Republicans. (Sorry, couldn’t help myself)

But in a five-person race, negative campaigning is not an advisable tactic, even though political consultants and pollsters often advise their clients to go negative based on their “research” results. Good candidates know how to say “no” to their advisors, and Teresa Alvarado knows how to be a good candidate.

(From left to right, John T. Knox, John Fora  and Paul Priolo. Bottom, Bill Bagley)

Former Marin Assemblyman Bill Bagley is a gregarious and genial man. Those who drive highway 101 just above the Golden Gate Bridge might recognize the freeway named for this republican that begins just before the Waldo Tunnel on the Marin side of the structure.

Yes, a republican once represented the now liberal enclave that is Marin County.

But Bagley’s greatest contribution to our state and to our politics may not be fully realized for a generation.   To understand why, you have to know the man, what makes him tick and why the issue is so important to him.

Two of Bagley’s closest friends are Jack Knox, a former Democratic Majority Leader in the State Assembly and former Democratic Senator John Foran, the former chairman of Transportation in the state senate.   These gentlemen used to be among the most powerful leaders in state government.

They would argue by day and party at night.   Knox could claim the best office bar in the State Capitol and Foran knows virtually every transportation system in every major city in the world. Not surprisingly, these men also have freeways named after them in the Bay Area.

Even after leaving government service, along with another republican pal, former minority leader Paul Priolo, they met every Friday for lunch at North Beach Restaurant in San Francisco.  The group grew among political insiders and Sacramento Seminar, an educational 501c4 was formed; Priolo chaired the organization until recently.

Each week it still meets for off the record conversations with newsmakers, media types and others.   Currently chaired by radical moderate Dick Spotswood, the group now included 100 members, who range from Republican Ed Zschau’s former consultant Ron Smith to Democratic Senator Alan Cranston’s liberal former aide Rich Robinson.

Every week we argue the merits and substance of current political issues.   We question current politicians from both sides of the aisle.  But most importantly, at the end of the day; we part friends.    We are friends who are able to agree to disagree, understanding that though we hold widely diverse political views we do not hate each other.

This is the world that Bill Bagley flourished in as a legislator and a time that he chronicles in his book, California’s Golden Years: When Government Worked and Why.

Yes, Bagley disagreed with his democratic colleagues.  But he governed.   He made compromises, he moved the ball and he recognized his adversaries as people who loved their state and their country.

Bagley, was a republican who believed in the institutions of government.  Obstruction was unthinkable; vote and win on the merits or lose on the merits.  The ultimate goal of government is to govern.

Long disenchanted with a party he no longer recognized as his own,  frustrated that moderate democratic and  republican voices were forced out of government by extremists and steadfast in his belief that bipartisanship, compromise and governance was essential and not a betrayal of fidelity to principle; he decided to act.

Bagley led the reform that led to an open primary system.  He believed an open primary will lead to more moderate elected officials over time.  He is right.   The primary system only allowed partisans on both sides to be successful.

Former Congressman Pete Stark was the first casualty of the new system.  He will not be the last.  Democrats and Republicans in formerly “safe” districts will compete against their own party.  The swing voters who decide the election,  will be from the other party.  No longer can a politician afford to engage in the mindless vitriol of denouncing the opposition party, because come November their votes will be needed to win an election.

The result is more moderate elected officials from both parties.  For partisans it is a nightmare.

For leaders like Bill Bagley, it is the solution to bringing back bipartisan solutions.  Now, if he can just get rid of Proposition 9.   For why, you should read his book.

George Shirakawa Jr. and Attorney. ( image from SJ Mercury News)

It was striking that when George Shirakawa Jr. pled guilty on Monday in Superior Court nary a friend or family member was there to support him. In politics you never know who your friends are until you are down and the absence of so many spoke volumes of George’s real plight.

There are those who continue to heap scorn on Shirakawa for his failings. Their anger is understandable.  But Shirakawa is just now facing the enormity of his addictions, the consequences of his actions and a seemingly bleak future that includes jail time.  But he has also taken the first step in moving forward with his life by taking responsibility in open court. This will be followed by some sobering times and he needs real friends to support his efforts.

But Shirakawa also needs to distinguish between his real friends and the enablers who facilitated his excesses and benefitted from his addictions.  He should separate himself from those individuals.

He should also cooperate with any future investigation regarding his crimes as called for in a recent Mercury News editorial. The public has a right to the assurance that his addictions were not used as coercion in his public decisions. If they were, he needs to acknowledge those facts and help identify those who preyed on him and by extension, the public.

To those who would continue to spitefully engage in Shirakawa bashing, now is the time to stand down.  Shirakawa has an illness and is faced with an uncertain future. Now is the time for good people in this community, especially its leaders, to offer support for his rehabilitation and to help him come out of this process a whole and better human being.

Ironically, it is the reporters who brought him down and the prosecutors who did their job who are the most empathetic. Congratulated by many for their pursuit of truth and justice, many were forced to witness the public destruction of a human being. It is not pretty, they were not gleeful.  They did their jobs.  They protected the public, which is the right thing to do.  But, on a personal level, it is difficult to watch a very public person melt down over time.  One reporter noted how macabre it was that they were being congratulated for the destruction of a human being, however justified.

Now George needs real friends in his corner and there are many out there.  All of us were disappointed by his actions, some of us called for his resignation, others were victims of his actions and many were caught totally unaware of his addictions.

But part of being a friend is the ability to forgive. George Shirakawa Jr. is not a bad man, he is a sick man whose disease caused him to make terrible mistakes. It is the nature of the addiction he will have to fight for the rest of his life. Everyone who truly knows George is also aware of his big heart and gregarious nature. He cares about the poorest among us and his efforts for those who were less fortunate should be remembered.

We should all be rooting for his successful rehabilitation. Understanding fully that he can never again hold public office, he can nonetheless redeem himself by conquering his personal demons and truly serving the community he loves.

Left: Vatican Conclave, Right: U.S. Congress

Habemus Papam! We have a Pope! The centuries old tradition of locking 115 men in a room until they make a decision still works today. This brings us to the old idea for getting rid of gridlock in our political system.

It is clear transparency, openness and 24/7 cable television has failed.  Back room political deals which were once the hallmark of getting things done have fallen out of favor.  Imagine if Lincoln hadn’t been able to bribe opposition Democrats to end slavery?  Not only would the emancipation proclamation have faced strict scrutiny but Daniel Day Lewis wouldn’t have gotten an Oscar and Mount Rushmore would be one face short of a full mountain.

The much maligned and tawdry deal making process was ended by self-righteous government do-gooders and nosy, self-interested media interests.   What is wrong with a little mystery in government? So what if Jerry Brown has to take a couple Republican State Senators on a fact-finding tour to the Cayman Islands to raise a few taxes?  You know how cheap Jerry is, they will fly coach.  But at least he could get a couple of bucks for our schools.

On the national stage, we might get a real budget passed instead of a continuing resolution. Heck, the republicans wouldn’t have to tell anyone how they voted.   They just send up some white smoke and Habemus Budget, we have a budget.

Cable news would actually increase their ratings as Wolf Blitzer and FOX and friends could mindlessly droll on about the speculation deep inside the capitol. It’s sort of like what they do now, without any cameras on the actual individuals.

Of course, we are way too sophisticated to use ancient methods to solve our problems.  Democracy is working far too well in this open and transparent environment.  Hardly anybody is violating the law where you can’t see them and there is rarely a scandal to cover up with all of these open and transparent rules.

Yes, the reporting requirements, plethora of ethics laws and iron-fisted enforcement systems have certainly eradicated corruption in our land. You can almost see everything working through all the black smoke.

Cover of Metro News, September '12

Integrity is the single most important ethos the public has a right to expect from anyone and everyone who participates in the political arena. Beyond party and philosophy, it is the one essential element of governance that each of us must insist upon when doing the people’s business.

Too often our divided politics or the perceived power of an individual has prevented the body politic from speaking out against obvious corruption.  While due process is essential for our legal process; flagrant acts of corruption, abuse of power, and illegal activity needs to be addressed as soon as it is recognized.

Josh Koehn of Metro News deserves a Pulitzer Prize for his investigative journalism that led to the recent resignation of Supervisor George Shirakawa.   His exposé ran on September 26, 2012.  This was the beginning of the end for the Supervisor.

Make no mistake, it was good journalism that broke this story.   It was reporters who followed-up on leads and the public documents that provided the impetus for investigating agencies.  The District Attorney diligently followed up, but the mechanisms in government designed to prevent or catch corruption failed at every level.

The Mercury News was the first to call for the Supervisor’s resignation.   Those who always opposed Shirakawa politically were more than gleeful to jump on the bandwagon.  Some good government folks, Santa Clara County Assessor Larry Stone and former Supervisor Blanca Alvarado raised their voice in opposition to the illegal acts of the Supervisor.

But much of the body politic remained largely silent.  Community leaders from all walks of life, regardless of party or philosophy should have condemned the obvious acts of corruption and called for the Supervisor to resign.

By failing to speak-out, many of these leaders exacerbated the already prevalent public opinion that all politics is corrupt.   It’s hard to blame the cynical when  an elected official flagrantly violates the law for so long with no detection, despite systems in place designed specifically to thwart the very acts that occurred.  And when finally caught blame is placed on the systems rather than the individual who violated his oath.

Dante said, “the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of moral crisis, preserve their neutrality.”

Still another group of people were some of his friends and supporters who had a noble but misguided sense of loyalty.   Like most enablers, these folks thought they were helping, but they did neither their friend nor the public any favors by defending the indefensible.

In politics, a friend, aide or consultant is often privy to personal private information.  People are human and sometimes they make mistakes.  If tasked with correcting the error without public embarrassment; that is part of the job.  However, covering up illegal activity, enabling a pattern of unethical behavior or any breach of fiduciary responsibility to the public is not part of the job.

Integrity means that you stand up for what is right when it is difficult.

The Supervisor was at one time, a client, a political ally and, most importantly, a friend.  But when the facts became clear he had violated the public trust; their interest had to supersede those relationships.  His constituents deserved to hear the truth and so did he.  There was never going to be a happy ending to this story for him.

In his book, Blind Ambition, John Dean tells the story with immense pain about having to tell the truth about President Nixon for whom he served.  He served jail time himself for his own role in the Watergate cover-up.  But Dean ultimately recognized that his “boss” was really the people of the United States and that Nixon was simply his manager.

It is a lesson for all who seek public service.  Because regardless of party, philosophy, personal interest or political fall-out; the public interest must come first.

Santa Clara County is fortunate to have a majority of leaders whose integrity is unchallenged including the remaining members of the Board of Supervisors.  And sometimes negative events can produce potential positive opportunities.  In fact, two of the most ethical women in San Jose are the most common names mentioned to replace Shirakawa in the district two seat.

If such representation does come to pass, the residents of district two will ultimately have Josh Koehn to thank.

Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer

The titans of Silicon Valley need some personal public relations advisors.   Marissa Mayer, Tim Cook, Meg Whitman, Scott McNealy and many others fail to grasp the most basic PR concepts.   They don’t have to look far for good role models.  Former titans David Packard, Bill Hewlett, Steve Jobs and Gordon Moore were masters at molding their public image.

Let’s start with Yahoo’s CEO Marissa Mayer, her recent edict to get rid of work-at-home options for employees could have been a huge public relations win.  Yet, the method of execution left her open to charges of; insensitivity or that she fails to trust her workforce and most damaging, that she lacks understanding of the modern challenges of raising a family in the 21st century.

As a recent mother who can afford her own personal nursery at the office, the “out of touch” label has become the storyline.

From a business perspective, the move may make sense.   However, Mayer could have “transitioned” the process in a way that by the time it was complete, no one would have cared.   This transition would have given her an opportunity to make the needed changes without the fall-out.   Even better she could have had a better process to implement the policy by giving details of the plan, asking for input from employees, accentuating the need for her team to be together for decision making purposes, mitigating the children’s issue by insuring onsite daycare, extending personal time for family, flexible schedules and other potential incentives for employees.

Such a roll-out would have resulted in the same policy without the harshness associated with a impersonal personnel memo.

CEO of Apple, Tim Cook has a different problem, he is no Steve Jobs.  The public relations value here is he doesn’t have to be Jobs.  Tim needs to be Cook. He can establish his own identity, while building on the foundation of the past. Everyone knows Jobs was a visionary but it was Cook who steered the ship. Utilizing just a few of the traditions of Jobs, honoring his spirit–even using the Woz is all good.

But Cook essentially needs to continue doing what he does best by steering the ship in the right direction.   It is a something he is quite capable of managing; as he has been doing it for a long time in the shadow of Jobs.

Currently Meg Whitman is rebuilding her image.  Like Tiger Woods, Martha Stewart or Bill Clinton; Whitman had a huge image problem from her failed gubernatorial run.  In an effort to appeal to the myopic base of the Republican Party, she was forced to take anti-gay, misogynist and was ultimately portrayed as an uncaring racist who put political necessity over human dignity.

She received bad advice and she gave her political consultants an unlimited budget, which they exceeded.  With that background, Whitman needs to reestablish an image that she is a great executive and rehabilitate the current perception that she is uncaring.

Her recent change of position on Proposition 8 was a great start.  She could have rolled it out better, explaining her reasons. In addition, if she spent half of what she spent on political consultants and television ads during her campaign on K-12 education initiatives; she would return to rock star status.

She was exactly right in minimizing turn-around expectations for HP; now she is in a position to exceed all expectations. That was a great call from a PR perspective.

Finally, all responsible chief executives, even ex-CEO’s-should never act like former SUN CEO Scott McNealy. McNealy is churlish and bitter.  Given his net worth he should be less envious of his contemporaries, less critical of his government, more empathetic to employees and finally, he should understand the benefits he has received from his education.

McNealy complains he should have never attended College–that he wasted his time in those higher institutions while drop-outs like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg were changing the world.

But Gates and Zuckerberg dropped out of Harvard.  McNealy attended Harvard and Stanford.  Jobs was connected to David Packard and other Silicon Valley legends.   The fact that his old corporation, SUN, was an acronym for “Stanford Universal Networks” should give him some pause for dumping on his alma mater.   If he had gone to Butte Community College, he would never have gotten his company off the ground.

As for government, note to McNealy; Government isn’t a business. Most businesses fail, those that succeed often get bought or bailed out by our federal government if they become big enough.  No single person, not even the President, has the power to do everything they want or make financial decisions that everyone must follow.

Unlike a company, government is not a dictatorship. Nor does the fact that you pay taxes, most likely at a rate less than your employees, give you the right to tell the government how it should work.  Seems Mr. McNealy was never invited to the White House to opine on how “his” tax dollars should be spent, something he finds personally offensive.

Finally, stop complaining that you are not as wealthy as Bill, Steve, Mark or–the guy who bought your company–Larry Ellison. Nobody feels your pity and you are wealthy enough to do anything you want to do.   Your freedom is not being encroached and the taxes you pay are minute compared to what you have in the bank.

There is nothing worse than a bitter, complaining and ungrateful billionaire.  Are the Koch brothers listening?

Congressman Mike Honda at Ethiopian Awards Ceremony

Nothing hurts in politics like being stabbed in the back; especially by a person who should be helping your cause instead of hurting it. As Brutus ultimately found out, killing Caesar does not always work out in the long run.

Fast forward to the curious case of Ro Khanna, the modern day Brutus who is considering a challenge to Congressman Mike Honda in the 17th Congressional District.

Nobody has done more for the empowerment of undeserved populations or mentored more potential leaders than Mike Honda. Not simply for the large asian community but every undeserved population. Honda is chair of the Ethiopian Caucus in Congress, for example, a small caucus that champions the issues of a small but growing Ethiopian immigrant population.

Locally, Honda has been responsible for the rise of many individuals including Assemblyman Paul Fong , Indo-American San Jose City Councilman Ash Kalra and Campbell Mayor Evan Low, the first openly gay Mayor of a Southbay city.  Honda has also help Vietnamese American candidate Jimmy Nguyen by giving his time, advice and money.

As a member of the Democratic National Committee he has raised money from every part of the nation and sought to empower individuals from communities that are poorly represented in the U.S. Congress.  Nationally, Honda supported Senator Mazie Hirono and Congresswoman Colleen Hanbusa of Hawaii, both of whom are Buddhist.  When Tulsi Gabbard, a Hindu sought election to Congress, it was Honda who sponsored her fundraiser in Cupertino.

Congressman Honda has been an example of one who has promoted the rise of the under-represented, so it is the height of irony that he would be challenged by an Indo-American from his own party.

Khanna, a former President Obama appointee (note the President has endorsed Honda), was stung badly by the defeat of Pete Stark.  As a resident of Fremont, he demurred running against the incumbent Congressman with an inferred promise that he would one day replace the aging, but powerful, Stark.  The surprise victory of Eric Stalwell over Stark nullified that implied agreement and left the ambitious Khanna wanting.

So Khanna, apparently emboldened by Stalwell’s success, now chooses to carpetbag and run against Honda in a district he does not know, live or work.  Undoubtedly, he is kicking himself for not challenging Stark last year,  but taking on Honda is a bad decision after a poor one.  By taking on Honda, Khanna’s career will be over before it begins.

The real tragedy of this potential race is its effect on candidates who could have benefited from both Honda and Khanna’s fundraising prowess.  Instead of expanding opportunity in congressional districts around the country, these two will be utilizing precious resources to fight each other.   Those dollars cannot be replaced and the ultimate winners are John Boehner and Eric Cantor who could never win the California 17th but won’t have to contend with the extra money raised by Honda to support candidates elsewhere.

In the final analysis, Khanna will lose this race badly if he decides to run.  Honda worked hard in the last election; not because he had a real opponent–but because the district was new for him and he takes nothing for granted.

Oh, and one more thing.  While Pete Stark was an effective Congressman– he was not considered a genuinely nice human being, nor did he pay enough attention to his local district.   That is the antithesis of Honda. Nearly everybody who knows Mike has sung karaoke with him, he has represented his district well and has helped nearly everyone in this valley.  In short, Honda is no Pete Stark.