My Photo

Ordering Information

Tomi on Twitter is @tomiahonen

  • Follow Tomi on Twitter as @tomiahonen
    Follow Tomi's Twitterfloods on all matters mobile, tech and media. Tomi has over 8,000 followers and was rated by Forbes as the most influential writer on mobile related topics

Book Tomi T Ahonen to Speak at Your Event

  • Contact Tomi T Ahonen for Speaking and Consulting Events
    Please write email to tomi (at) tomiahonen (dot) com and indicate "Speaking Event" or "Consulting Work" or "Expert Witness" or whatever type of work you would like to offer. Tomi works regularly on all continents

Tomi on Video including his TED Talk

  • Tomi on Video including his TED Talk
    See Tomi on video from several recent keynote presentations and interviews, including his TED Talk in Hong Kong about Augmented Reality as the 8th Mass Media


Blog powered by Typepad

« Quick Thoughts on iPhone 5 - Even as some geeks mildly disappointed, this is killer hit smartphone of 2012 Christmas | Main | Speed and Power of SMS: The 2012 Update »

September 18, 2012


John Ross

I could not disagree more. This is almost an exact replay of 1980, when Carter led Reagan in the polls up to the week before the election and the "experts" said Reagan should tone down his rhetoric, which he DIDN'T. And then won by a landslide.

We have a President who is MASSIVELY in over his head, steering our country toward economic ruin domestically and third-rate status internationally. Romney has not apologized for his comments, and shouldn't. We need more of the same, not less.

We need another Reagan, not, as you seem to wish for, another John McCain.


Yes, we need another Reagan; a President who increased the national debt from just under $900 Billion to over $2100 Billion. A president who pushed his CIA analysts to publish Soviet Military Power reports annually to Congress that severely overstated the challenge. Yes, I used to read and memorize them at the US Naval Academy...before joining the nuclear submarine force. Am I accusing the CIA of lying to scare Congress into supplying the funds? NO. I don't need to accuse anyone because the CIA already admitted to Congress of the lie while under oath in the early 1990's. If we look at the last 30+ years, it was Reagan who left the USA with huge debt and projected annual deficits. His successor, Pres. GHWB, added a cool $1000 Bio, making it just about 3300 Bio when Pres. Clinton took office. Clinton kept the debt FLAT and delivered 4 successive surpluses in his second term while handing over 10 years of $200Bio annually projected surpluses to Pres. GWB. It was the Republican, GWB, that turned these surpluses into $5000 Bio of additional debt with off budget wars paid via supplementals, huge tax cuts to the rich (thanks dude), and a prescription drug plan to Big Pharma that made us tobacco executives (living in Switzerland) envious. Pres. GWB not only left Pres. Obama an economy in free-fall, but also a FY2009 budget with a $1200Bio deficit GWB signed into law! The GWB math is 3300 + 5000 + 1200 = $9500 Bio. (Note: Putting GWB and math together in the same sentence should be illegal.)

The Republicans want the nation to think it was Obama who caused the trillion dollar deficits. No, it was GWB who signed our first huge trillion dollar deficit into law in Sept 2008. Of course, most of these huge deficits are now caused by automatic triggers that have kept the economy from completely imploding. In fact, most of Obama's FY2010 budget overrun was the result of these automatic triggers.

I am not happy with Pres. Obama's performance when measured against his campaign promises. But on balance, when measured against an obstructionist Republican Congress that has filibustered more than any Senate minority in history, his performance has been pretty damn good.

I'm hoping Romney's Republicans continue to devour themselves to the point where the bloodbath spills over into both House and Senate races. In order to get the USA back on track, we need a Republican minority that is castrated and unable to filibuster. We need a House majority that represents the people, not the 0.05%. We need a Senate that can support Obama in stacking this ultra right wing court so that the US Constitution's principles can be restored. Citizen's United is the beginning of the end of the great US democratic experiment.

PS: A point of trivia. Who gave Karl Rove his first big start? It was Philip Morris USA. Karl was the bag man who ensured the PAC money got to the friendly Texas Republicans. Look it up.

PPS: Karl Rove has been putting money behind Senate and House races becasue he knew early on that Romney was a bad bet, even for him.


those leeches were not going to vote for romney anyway so who cares?


I don't know if this video is a real problem for Romney. I don't pretend to know the US well, it's only a country I cross (for business or leisure), so I don't take time to talk about politics there (and I have no reason for doing it).

But, I can compare with Canada... Canada is quite different of the US : taxes are quite high, there is a social system for everyone... but still many people consider "socialism" as a bad thing, even if they enjoy this system.

It's a mistake to think that voters are objective; maybe many are, but it's not the majority. People vote with their guts, with their feelings.

Some retired people may agree with Romney, even if they benefit from this system; they will agree, because if the system is good to them, they'll consider they deserve it, whereas their neighbour, who benefit the system too, doesn't... just because they don't like him.

I'm not the one who will judge all that : I was born and raised in a country with a strong socialist tradition, Americans have another tradition and it's okay. Still, it's heart-taking for me to see shanty-towns in West O'Ahu, Michigan or New England. All businesses we used to work with and which close.

I still think the game is not over, that everything can happen on Nov. 6th



Your first paragraph reminds me of a legend about the Harrier :

When Hawker introduced the Harrier, engineers invited a Soviet team from Yakovlev to study their new "baby". Hawker's executives hopped Soviets would design a competitor, what would result in the need of the development of a new Harrier (and more funds for the company).

I don't know how true is this story - Russians actually confirm it - but it's still interesting.

Cold war was a good excuse for incredible and useless spendings, based on lies and cheating.


There's a grain of truth in what Romney said. There is a set percentage of the population who will vote for one candidate over another, primarily based on the letter D or R after his name. In addition, both parties, but particularly the Democrats as of late, have used expanded government spending as a way to foster dependence on government, which is a relatively new phenomena in American culture (the last 2-3 generations). Social Security and Medicare have become "third rails" that politicians are afraid to touch, even though the programs need massive scaling back and restructuring.

I don't think Romney is a 1% "elitist" any more than John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, or even Barack Obama and Bill Clinton. He's just not a good campaigner, and the long primary hurt him. Like most politicians, he doesn't really have solid principles and is more of a weather vane, but unlike Bill Clinton or Barack Obama he does a bad job of covering it up. Bill Clinton could say with a straight face that the "era of big government is over," and Barack Obama could "evolve" from being against same-sex marriage to being for it (3 years after neo-con Dick Cheney), or from being against Bush's use of "executive imperialism" to launching drone strikes on US citizens and get away with it because they know the drill. Reagan was the last GOP president who was good at it. Bush I wasn't. He was competent enough to get elected the first time but struggled to relate to people during a recession. Bush II squeaked by barely, primarily because his opponents (Al Gore and John Kerry) were awful candidates.

The 2012 election is turning out like the 2004 election. An unpopular president is coasting to re-election primarily because the public doesn't like the alternative. Again, that should teach the parties to avoid out-of-touch candidates from Massachusetts (Dukakis, Kerry, Romney).


There are two factions within the US Power Elite that have lined up behind Romney and Obama. "Big War" and "Big Oil", respectively. The Bush family tried to balance both sides, and despite the buffoonery and atrocities in other areas, Bush family did that balance well.

So "Big War" wants an incident to incite war with Iran vs. Israel and US. Big Oil would rather keep oil and profits flowing predictably in the Middle East.

Watchout as there are whispers that Big War wants to engineer another event like the Iran Hostage Crises of 1979 that guaranteed Carter lost in 1980, so that Romney has a better chance in 2012.


@Stoli89, the GOP congress is mostly obstructionist because Obama rammed everything down their throats when his party had a super-majority. Unlike Clinton, he didn't move to the center after getting beaten back in the first mid-term election, but instead doubled down. Plus, his thumb-his-nose strategy fired up the base of the GOP, which got a lot more extreme candidates elected in 2010 than in 1994 (though Boehner is a lot more centrist than Newt Gingrich, and Clinton still managed to work with Gingrich a lot better than Obama with Boehner).

There's only so much that Obama can blame on the GOP congress. By the time they took power, he had already passed most of his agenda. The only major item he didn't get passed was immigration reform, and I get the sense he was never serious about that. Since 2010, he's just overused his executive power the way most presidents do, naturally without any complaints from the Left, who used to decry Bush's "imperial" use of executive power.

European audiences seem enamored by Obama for reasons I don't quite understand. The extreme elements of the GOP don't help matters, but Europeans don't seem to care that Obama views them with disdain. Look at how relations with the UK deteriorated, and yet Britons would elect him in a heartbeat (much like the abused spouse stands by her man). Obama is of the "spend money now, worry about it later" philosophy that has gotten much Europe into trouble. Someone is going to need to deal with the structural deficits that entitlement spending has left us, and unfortunately, it is neither of the two candidates, but especially not Obama, whose crowning achievement is creating yet another, even bigger entitlement.


"Then all the Paul Ryan favorite Ayn Rand theories about rewarding success and punishing those who are weak start to make sense. The ultra-libertarian view."

The quote above is entirely wrong about ultra-libertarianism. The whole point of the ultra-libertarian is that s/he doesn't want anyone to do any rewarding or punishment. Ayn Rand would claim that success follows naturally from the intelligent, decisive action, if only the state (and similar institutions) would get out of the way. She wouldn't want you to vote for Paul Ryan, but would want the abolishing of politics in general.

John edwards

This is the very conversation that we should be having. Romney has set the table for a feast! I think the presentation was clumsy but the truth was told. The left will parse the words and make a false assertion. However, We have far too many people living on the dole. If we do not get our fiscal house in order then we become a socialist society. We cannot have more people taking a handout than people paying taxes and have a democracy.

Obama wants to distribute weath and Romney wants to create wealth. Romney should take this message right to the American public. He should not back down – he should instead double down. If he backs down then I agree with you – he has lost.


Nice how the commenters from the USA all work hard to show Tomi's analysis is right. Thank you.

It is revealing that none of the commenters addresses the point that retired people tend to pay no federal taxes and hence are leeches in the eyes of Romney cs.

This whole voting demographic is alienated by the GOP candidate. When these pensioners remember that during the next house/senate elections, the Republicans might be in for a nasty surprise.

Personally, I expect other GOP candidates to drop this issue (and candidate) like a piece of burning coal (hot potato seems to weak).


John edwards>We have far too many people living on the dole.

how many in the US is on the dole? and how much does it cost to have a person on the dole, i.e. how long do the benefits last etc..



It's interesting you bring that up about retirees. There is a larger point that can be generalized from Romney's more specific statement about Obama voters.

Yesterday, on NPR, there was a story done at a retirement home (I believe) where just about everyone was using some kind of government aid. A Romney supporter, when asked about the 47% statement, replied that it didn't refer to people like him because he paid his taxes to Social Security and Medicare all his life. When pressed, he claimed that Romney was taking about "voters" when referring to the 47%. Just goes to show the cognitive dissonance that humans exhibit from time to time...

Also, I find these viewpoints fascinating simply because ultimately, things like the Ryan plan do not care about this "nuance" since it would cut benefits to all people under these programs, not just from those who "don't deserve it".


This whole discussion about the "lazy" 47% who are, in Romney's eyes, on the public dole is not only politically deadly, but factually incorrect. First, of the lazy 47% who Romney thinks will be with Pres. Obama no matter what, 23% pay payroll taxes (which means they are working and paying into Social Security and Medicare), 10.3% are the retired elderly living off of Social Security (to which they paid into, lest we forget). Maybe Romney is talking about the 6.9% who are earning less than 20K per year. The under/unemployed poor, the newly graduated college students who cannot find jobs in this market, or the war torn soldiers returning home to joblessness?

But wait, is the income tax the only tax that funds the federal coffers? No, the income tax makes up about 42% of gov't revenue. The majority (58%) is comprised of Payroll taxes (40%) + Corp Income Tax (9%) + Excise Taxes (3%) + Other (6%: import duties, licensing, etc.). Note that Social Security is not part of the gov't revenue as it's self-funded by its trust fund, to which workers contribute. In the broader sense, nearly everyone is paying some form of federal taxation and certainly state taxes (which include income, sales/excise, licensing, and other forms of tax).

Ten Republican states depend on the Federal government because they take in from the federal government more than they submit in federal taxes. Is Mitt calling the folks residing in these states lazy? How about the white male veteran retirees who vote disproportionately for Republicans. Are they also lazy? What about 55% of the large corporations that paid NO income tax from 1998 to 2005? Corporations are people too Mitt...are they also lazy?

Did Mitt pay any income taxes in 2009? If no, then would he also fall into the lazy 47%?


The funny thing wrt the "leeches" comments is that the main support base for the Democrats (and Obama) is in states that are net payers of federal taxes (eg, both coasts). The main support base for the Republicans is in states that are net receivers of federal taxes.

It is like those Tea Party demonstrators yelling "Keep Government out off my Medicare".


when are you going to write an article that says obviously htc 8x and 8s are much better nokia; so more competition; so nokia is dooomed ?


@Baron95 Wow, even in a discussion about US politics, you take the time to fire off a bunch of non-sequiturs, and then you pump for Windows Phone. Well, in the real world, people are getting concerned how all these Windows Phone *devices* are appearing, but no details about the Windows Phone 8 *operating system* have been released. Even the Ars Technica Microsoft expert, Peter Bright, who is usually so bullish about anything Microsoft, is concerned about whether Windows Phone 8 will be ready on time.

Personally, I got bored of this election when Romney got the nomination. We keep getting centrist flip-floppers. Even Bush, Kerry, and Gore are largely centrist, by US standards. It would have been exciting to get a veto-happy ideologue, like Ron Paul. But I know that that is practically impossible at the moment.


I was remembering it wrong. Kerry isn't centrist. McCain is centrist.

Kerry was just incredibly boring. Somehow, some obscure detail of his conduct when he was young managed to overshadow his past 30 years of accomplishments. Which says something about what he has accomplished. It felt like he was nominated because he is tall and has good hair.

Four years ago, I favored Obama in the primary election because he campaigned on "Hope" and "Change," but then he selected Biden, of all people, to be his running mate. I've never voted for a Democrat or Republican candidate in the November election.


A phone OS with 3% market share or less that is all but abandonned by its parent for more sexy tablets? Why would that be important?

Any Bada anouncement warrants more attention. Unless you are recompensated to write about it.


Because MS paid Samsung for marketing?

MS did the same for Nokia. Actually, phone networks have earned nice extra income from advertising Lumia too. They dropped it immediately afterwards as no one wanted the phones. But the marketing money was welcome.


@ Decade:

Senator Kerry was "Swift Boated" by a group of very rich Oil men from Texas, to include T-Boone Pickens. The term came into the popular lexicon becasue it basically means to falsely re-brand someone through nefarious marketing techniques. Kerry was a highly decorated Vietnam Veteran and honorably discharged officer in the Navy. He commanded a swift boat in the "Brown Water" Navy, supporting special operations missions up and down the Mekong River and its tributaries. This was an incredibly dangerous assignment, where he was awarded the Silver Star, Bronze Star, and more than one Purple Heart for being wounded in combat. He came back from Vietnam with a seasoned perspective and began to protest publicly in favor of ending the war. The Republican Swift Boaters spent huge money to make it seem like he was a draft dodging hippie who protested the war out of fear from serving. Clearly, the truth is exactly the opposite of this Republican smear campaign. But the Republicans were successful and Bush won his second term handily. Funny enough, it was GWB who joined the Air Guard to avoid the draft and got a cushy assignment stateside whereby he often missed military formation and other assignments. All of these facts were buried long ago by his CIA director father, GHWB, even though his former commanding officer confirmed his poor record.

Tomi T Ahonen

Hi everybody - hey, lets not do the smartphone debate in this thread. I won't delete your comments but you should know better. Please bring the smartphone or other mobile discussions to any of hundreds of postings here. This is about the US politics only. After this comment by me, if I see more discussion about smartphones or other tech, I will delete all those from this thread. I will of course be returning to those topics shortly on this blog, as there is plenty of news happenin' - but this thread is about the US presidential election

Tomi Ahonen :-)

Tomi T Ahonen

Hi John, Stoli and boooring

John - I hear you and yes, there are certainly similarities to Carter-Reagan in 1980. Obama like Carter has a big economic mess. Obama like Carter faces a Muslim world embassy attack and lots of protests. The sentiment is that the country is on the wrong track rather than right track. And Rommey is a clear non-Washington politician as the businessman like Reagan was the Hollywood star. Romney like Reagan had been the Governor of a Democratic-leaning state.

But John, there are huge differences. The economy under Carter went from good to horrid. Obama inherited the economic mess from Bush 2 and the economy has been improving enormously from the catastrophy it was at. The electorate very fairly accused Carter for the malaise of his time, inflation, unemployment, oil prices etc. The current electorate fairly does not hold Obama as guilty of causing the mess, even where they would like the economy to be far better than it is. Similarly in military and foreign policy, Carter was seen as inept and timid with the Iran hostage crisis and his failed attempt to rescue the hostages. Meanwhile Obama gets very high marks for foreign policy and nobody accuses him of being in any way at fault for the attack at the consulate in Libya. Meanwhile Obama is credited with the killing of Osama Bin Laden.

The personal favorability of Carter was very bad at this time in 1980. Obama's personal favorability is very high.

Meanwhile on Reagan vs Romney. Reagan had a long history of promoting (very strong, right-wing) foreign policy positions. Romney has no competence at all in foreign policy matters and has failed his '3 AM phone call moment' as well as his first international trip as Presidential candidate. Reagan was well liked but also feared, partly as too right-wing and perhaps a war-hawk, but also as being borderline too old. When the electorate saw Reagan at the Convention and debates and the campaign, they warmed to him that he's actually not an extreme conservative but had a well-argued strong military position (600 ship navy etc) and that he was clearly not yet senile. Reagan had good favorability at this point in time. Romney has the worst personal favorability ratings of any presidential candidate ever measured at this point in the election cycle. Romney is a one-trick pony, he is 'the business guy' and his credibility on that score is now so bad, that Obama is rated better at fixing the economy than Romney.

No, John, the parallels to Carter-Reagan are not valid, because Romney is now much more like Carter - disliked, seen as weak on foreign policy and military, and lesser on the economy. It is Obama who is more like Reagan, better on foreign policy, good enough on the economy - and the far better campaigner, and far better communicator..

As to 'we need another Reagan' - that may be, but Romney is no Reagan. Not on his best day.

Stoli - you make good points and I was among those who felt the US was going massively overboard with Reagan's armament program from the 600 ship navy to Star Wars.. but.. I was won over, when he was able to 'win' the Cold War without actually a shooting match vs the Soviets. As we've seen from unclassified documents, there was a huge myth about the power and ability of the Soviet Union to sustain an arms race - they went bankrupt essentially trying to keep up with Reagan. Whatever bad things he did - Iran Contra etc - I do have to credit Reagan with ending the threat of nuclear holocaust around the Cold War, which was often near eruption during my first three decades of my life..

On the other point about the coat-tails for Obama, yes I agree, what the USA does need, is for the Republicans to 'learn' that they went too far with the tea party and obstructionist philosophies of government. What the USA needs, is a more reasonable, willing-to-compromise GOP that can help govern. For the Republicans to get there, they have to be beaten badly with the Tea Party fantasy and get back to reality. I am hoping it can be achieved in one cycle, I am afraid it will take longer, with a Tea Party faction often then holding more mainstream Republicans hostage like we saw this past Congress.

Cool, didn't know that about Rove's start. Thanks!

boooring - if the USA was only a country of two parties, then yes, you would be correct. If Romney was able to accurately identify the 47% who won't vote for him, and target the other 53%, that could be a winning strategy. But the US is a three-way split country, nearly evenly 3 parts, one Democratic, one Republican, and one Independent in the middle. That is why this is so utterly devastating. The Republicans will love the 47% statements - but if all registered Republicans show up, Romney gets about 32% of the vote. He HAS to win part of the Independents at least (or like Reagan, even right-leaning Democrats). And that is why this statement is poison. Those with a fair mind, ie more-or-less uncommitted independents, will evaluate the candidate more than just vote by party loyalty. They will be aghast by the statement. Romney will lose the Independents by at least 2 to 1 and when the exit polls come out, it will be mostly due to this 47% statement.

Tomi Ahonen :-)

Tomi T Ahonen

Hi vladkr, KPOM, decentralist

vladkr - haha, thanks for joining in the discussion anyway :-) Yes, you make a good point about people voting their guts and feelings. That is normal human behavior, and it is part of why even today the polls say the election is about 49% to 45% nationally. There is a huge 'inertia' and most who 'always' vote Republican, will continue to do so this year, as will those who vote Democratic. There is essentially no way for Romney to get less than 40% of the total vote, nearly impossble, and equally impossible to pass 60% (and vice versa for Obama). But this 47% statement (and other Romney mistakes) will do three things - some whose mind can be changed, will do so - always minus for Romney and plus for Obama. Furthermore, this will reduce Republican enthusiasm for the election - some will not show up to vote on November 6, while it raises the Democratic enthusiasm so more of the potential Democratic vote shows up. In the 2008 election the lack of enthusiasm for McCain cost him a couple of percentage of the vote. And thirdly - people will not support the campaign as strongly - this ranges from sending money, to volunteering to the campaign, to other politicians showing up to campaign with Romney (all problems already visible, the Romney campaign has a surprising loss in the last 30 days of campaign contributions to Obama, and there are already many Republican Senators, Governors, Congressmen who are putting distance between Romney and themselves, many actually saying they disagree with this 47% statement)

The cumulative effect of those three can be 5% of the total vote this cycle.

Haha, yeah, the Harrier story, I remember also hearing it and wondering if it was true - there was also a lot of British collaboration or 'appreciation' of Soviets, from World War 2, to the various spy scandals and even military hardware tech sharing.

KPOM - I'll agree there is plenty more than just a grain of truth to what he said. But the main points, that somehow 47% are living off the money from the other 53% - is utterly totally misleading. The maximum number you can argue that would be true, would be of the order of a couple of percent at best (which would include children not eligible to vote) And the attitude that Romney tells his millionaire friends that he can't influence these lazy souls, and won't bother trying - to me totally disqualifies him as a potential president (similar to how he intends to hope for foreign policy without any plan and just wishing he can kick the can to the next president without major incident, the full-length video with the Middle East issues etc).

If you want to go to Europe in the 1970s and even 1980s, and argue that there were large populations of the unemployed, students, etc in Sweden, Finland, Netherlands, Belgium etc - yeah, you could say that a meaningful percentage of those 'progressive' European countries had created a kind of dependency class or entitled class of people preferring to take their unemployment checks and not work. That isn't the USA and today is nothing like that. Even most of the European situation (arguably, not in Greece though) has already been fixed by their more conservative governments by the 1990s, following Margaret Thatcher's example from Britain.

Whether Romney is an elitist for the 1% is something we will never know, he is too untruthful ever to tell us exactly what deepest on his mind. But - he has clearly said he wants to tax the poor - to widen the tax base - and he wants to give tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires, not least himself, but all his super-rich friends who are bankrolling the campaign. In the big picture economics, those tax changes will not save or kill the USA, even the Buffett rule would only impact the deficit by a couple of percent - but Romney's plan would cut taxes for people like him by massive amounts. A Billionaire funding Romney is simply a good investment, giving millions will be easily recovered from Romney's new tax plans (if Romney wins). There has never been a presidential candidate who so blatantly advocated 'reverse Robin Hood' economics. And the GOP is fully in line with Grover Norquists's pledges and the Ryan budgets, etc.

I do agree, that Romney is ALSO a very bad campaigner and has been inept at hiding this elitist tax idea. Incidentially, I did feel that Romney - judging from his Bain, Olympics and Massachussetts past - is a better actual manager than campaigner, whereas Obama is clearly the reverse, Obama excels at campaigning, but is only mediocre at the governing part of being President.

This campaign by Romney, however, has totally convinced me, that Romney is NOT a competent or capable manager. So Romney is not just a bad campaigner, he is also a bad manager, and he happens to also have a very badly managed campaign (and related bad staff). Romney does need what Peggy Noonan wrote for the Wall Street Journal, an intervention - except there is nobody who could do that for Romney, and at this stage. It should go to McCain or Bush 2 but neither has any credibility in Romney's mind. Maybe Cheney, maybe Bush 1, or someone like a Kissinger etc.. but no, there isn't anyone because Romney mostly was an outsider and didn't play the GOP parlor games.

Plus what could possibly now be done? Bring in Carl Rove to try to save this already-sunken ship? No, ain't gonna happen. Romney will keep his staff (those who aren't actually going to jump off, like Tim Pawlenty) and they will sink with this ship and mostly have a damaged career from being part of the biggest GOP loss as far back as most people can remember

I do agree that there are lots of similarities to 2004, but remember, while the nation doesn't like the direction of the country, they do like Obama by a very wide margin, so its not an unpopular president as such (like it was with Bush 2 at this time in 2004).

decentralist - like the factions thinking Big Oil and Big War, and it fits well, but obviously there are other factions too - social conservatives/religious right etc.. But I don't see either Big War nor Big Oil selecting Obama as their choice - Romney-Ryan promise massive budget increases to the military (hence BIg War) and the drill-baby-drill Oil Lobby around Dick Cheney is solidly in Romney's pocket throwing tons of money his way.

Thank you all for writing, I hope to come back with more comments, keep the discussion going

Tomi Ahonen :-)


@ Baron 95:

Two words: PLEASE READ

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Available for Consulting and Speakerships

  • Available for Consulting & Speaking
    Tomi Ahonen is a bestselling author whose twelve books on mobile have already been referenced in over 100 books by his peers. Rated the most influential expert in mobile by Forbes in December 2011, Tomi speaks regularly at conferences doing about 20 public speakerships annually. With over 250 public speaking engagements, Tomi been seen by a cumulative audience of over 100,000 people on all six inhabited continents. The former Nokia executive has run a consulting practise on digital convergence, interactive media, engagement marketing, high tech and next generation mobile. Tomi is currently based out of Hong Kong but supports Fortune 500 sized companies across the globe. His reference client list includes Axiata, Bank of America, BBC, BNP Paribas, China Mobile, Emap, Ericsson, Google, Hewlett-Packard, HSBC, IBM, Intel, LG, MTS, Nokia, NTT DoCoMo, Ogilvy, Orange, RIM, Sanomamedia, Telenor, TeliaSonera, Three, Tigo, Vodafone, etc. To see his full bio and his books, visit Tomi Ahonen lectures at Oxford University's short courses on next generation mobile and digital convergence. Follow him on Twitter as @tomiahonen. Tomi also has a Facebook and Linked In page under his own name. He is available for consulting, speaking engagements and as expert witness, please write to tomi (at) tomiahonen (dot) com

Tomi's eBooks on Mobile Pearls

  • Pearls Vol 1: Mobile Advertising
    Tomi's first eBook is 171 pages with 50 case studies of real cases of mobile advertising and marketing in 19 countries on four continents. See this link for the only place where you can order the eBook for download

Tomi Ahonen Almanac 2009

  • Tomi Ahonen Almanac 2009
    A comprehensive statistical review of the total mobile industry, in 171 pages, has 70 tables and charts, and fits on your smartphone to carry in your pocket every day.

Alan's Third Book: No Straight Lines

Tomi's Fave Twitterati