The 2008 Presidential Election and Outsourcing


Am going to start following the main candidates for the 2008 Presidential Election closely to dissect what (if anything) they plan to do to promote / restrict outsourcing services if they get elected.  While they all need to be seen to be openly "protecting" US jobs, they also need to protect the motives of business leaders, many of whom have a vested interested in outsourcing and fund the campaigns of the hopeful candidates.  In the meantime, I thought it would be interesting to have a "reverse poll" and get your take on who you would LEAST like to see in the Whitehouse next year (as we’re so spoiled for choice, you can select your two most unlikeable candidates).  Vote on the scrollbar to the left. 

Let’s keep this conversation rolling…

Posted in : Business Process Outsourcing (BPO)



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. Why isn’t Ron Paul on the list? This accomplish nothing, surrender at first chance, associate with neo nazi crazy is the only one that really frightens me.

  2. You can skip RP, but not Huckabee! Won’t change my vote though. As a Massachusetts resident the only lasting impression of Romney is that he is the ultimate vote whore. He goes beyond flip-flopping. While they are all pols and thus would all do practically anything to buy a vote, at least once they got in the White House they might actually try to do some good. Romney, however, even in office, is 100% posturing – he takes the side of the issue that the popularity polls suggest. Note that both major Boston newspapers, the liberal Globe and the right-wing Herald, threw support behind McCain and NOT the “native son” (?) Romney. And what has Romney done for MA high tech? Zilch. Despite having the top scoring high schools in the nation test-wise, and despite having arguably the top concentration of colleges in the nation (c’mon, there is Harvard, MIT, BC, BU, Northeastern, Wellesley, Smith, Tufts, Williams, Amherst, Brandeis, Babson, Worcester Poly, and a bunch of other very decent colleges, ah yes, and UMass), MA continues to experience job erosion in the high tech sector. Has Romney made MA more attractive to business? MA should be more of a hotbed with all that matriculating talent. Thanks for nothing Mr. Romney, you complete phony. Teflon for President? I sure hope not.

  3. It’s sad to watch how both major parties are trying hard to nominated the least acceptable candidates…

  4. Marilyn Manson.


    I’m less concerned about who I don’t want to see in the White House, and more concerned about who I hope isn’t the candidate for my party.

  5. The people I would least like to see there will finally be out of there. Hopefully NONE of their families or friends take up residence The only person who I thought I might like to see there is not running.

  6. Seems we all can agree on the worst possible choice 🙂 Honestly, Canada looks better than life with her,


  7. A guy named Philip Fersht…. oh, you mean who among the current presidential candidates (or should it be candidates for president since some may feel they are not ‘presidential’) ….can I cast multiple votes? Anyone other than …

  8. Anyone named Bush, followed by Mr. Huckabee and Mr. Thompson. We will have finished eight years of the living dead already, and frankly don’t need more of that. Lowell

  9. Your opinion of Ron Paul is the media and establishment baloney that we’ve been fed. If he scares you because he believes that we should re-establish our position in the world’s eyes and NOT just jump to war, well then I guess a few candidates scare you. If you’re open to actually seeing what this candidate thinks instead of just watching CNN sound bites on him, his website is

    BTW, I Am NOT a republican.

  10. Whew, political chatter can often breed some high flame cross talk. I love it.

    Let’s see, we currently are under the thumb of an incompetent. As much as the talent pool is thin, and IT IS, anyone from this mix, including Clinton is an upgrade. That being said, and ONLY trusting Gore ( still waiting ) or Obama ( yeah, this country’s ready to vote a black man, right), I’d have to say:

    Thompson (although I like L&O reruns)
    Hilary( she is hard to look at let alone trust)

    C’mon Edwards, be the dweller in the threshold….

  11. Due to the impact US politic has all around the world, we should have a vote on that election too.

    Every decision taken by White House has influence in our lives, our money, and our security.
    USA decided to go to Iraq on war…and we were involved on that too.
    Wall Street open in red…and we also fall, just near the close time in Europe.
    Relations with other countries, trade markets, everything is impacted by US politics.

    Why not a vote for us?

  12. Anyone running. They all come rom the same group, just with different slogans and tag lines to make us think they are different. In the end they all end up doing the same thing, which is often what they promised they wouldn’t do.

  13. I least want to see someone who would further their own agendas and ignore those of the people.

    I don’t want to see someone whom have witnessed the belligerences of our country and try to continue old efforts from the past.

    I least want to see someone who caters to the rich and not to the working, middle or poor classes.

    Whatever package, delegation or “party” that ill serves the country first and the globally community second.

    Someone who relies on fake morality and drummed up conservatism.

  14. Any Republican candidate – after 8 years of mismanagement and a war that makes no sense, it’s time for a change…

  15. It doesn’t really matter… they have no power. Anything that is vetoed by the President can be overridden by the Senate. Anything that is wanted by the President can be ditched by the House and Senate. The real power lies in the Senate. I can only hope the voters will figure that out one day.


  16. Me!

    First, I don’t want to be President. It’s a crappy job. Second, I don’t ever want a job that requires me and my family to have physical protection 24hrs a day not because of anything we’ve done, or even that we might do, just because we are.

    My wife would be pissed because she hates DC, and my daughters like their daycare teachers. Plus, we just moved, and I’m not moving again even if it is at tax payer expense.

    Last, but not least, remember the old refrain “Don’t complain if you don’t vote!”? Do you think anyone’s going to let me complain if I’m President? Heck no.

    I’m happy enough in my current job, thank you, and while it doesn’t pay anywhere near as much as the Presidency does in dollars, it enables a better standard of living.

  17. McCain would have to be the worst choice America could make right about now – that’ll get the US embroiled deeper into Mid Eastern conflicts and the wrong way of approaching the ‘WOT’… Closely followed by Huckabee and Romney. Ron Paul’s not even worth considering.

  18. Any candidate who struggles with the following: (1) separation of church & state, (2) responsible fiscal management, (3) election finance reform, (4) prudent tax reform, and in general (5) artculating & implementing a leadership vision.

    Its still too early to really assess the candidates thoroughly against all of these criteria, although positions on church & state are largely defined along party lines. Candidates’ positions are still necessarily formative to minimally differentiate them from their competitiors, though certainly not specific enough to implement.

    That said, they’re all borderline hopeless.

  19. No presidential candidate has addressed in depth the fundamental problem: The fantasy of “free” trade embraced by the neocon right which took over the Republican party beginning with Reagan, accelerating through Daddy Bush, gaining a Congressional majority with Clinton, and – with a little luck – peaking with Dubya.

    No country in history save the England has ever tried truly “free” trade on a sustained basis. The Brits discovered the disasters endemic to “free” trade with its Indian colony in the mid and late 19th century: Without tariffs, the British homeland standard of living deteriorated as domestic workers were displaced as cheaper foreign goods became available. The Brits ended their experiment, fueled in large part by the crackpot economic policies of Adam Smith, so dear to the hearts of right wing economic theorists to this day.

    In a global economy, the implications of free trade are clear. Capital will seek the lowest possible production cost. That means workers in advanced economies with high standards of living will be replaced by cheaper workers in lower cost countries. In the long term, global costs of production will level out among countries. The leveling will cause dramatic lowering of livng standards in formerly “advanced” countries, and corresponding rises in living standards for previously poor countries.

    Embracing free trade means clutching a lower standard of living for your kids and grandkids – and maybe for yourselves. The cure is “protectionism” and “nationalism” – both concepts embraced by our founding fathers, and anathema to current politicians of most stripes – save Ron Paul, who stands no chance of being elected president of our country.

    Politicians most likely to reject, to some degree, NAFTA, WTO and unrestricted immigration are, perversely, Democrats.

    So if you value your job, and hope to see politicians begin to try to save our own standard of living, vote Democratic. These folks have many faults, but they’re not wedded to a theory which in practice demonstrably impoverishes American citizens in order to enrich their multinational employers.

Continue Reading