"In the National Interest"

Warren Buffett appeared on CNBC this morning, and used strong words to describe the economic challenges facing the nation: "we really are [in] an economic war."

He had strong words for both parties' conduct so far:

I think that the Republicans have an obligation to regard this as an economic war and to realize you need one leader and, in general, support of that. But I think that the--I think that the Democrats--and I voted for Obama and I strongly support him, and I think he's the right guy--but I think they should not use this--when they're calling for unity on a question this important, they should not use it to roll the Republicans all. I think--I think a lot of things should be--job one is to win the war, job--the economic war, job two is to win the economic war, and job three. And you can't expect people to unite behind you if you're trying to jam a whole bunch of things down their throat...

I would absolutely say for the--for the interim, till we get this one solved, I would not be pushing a lot of things that are--you know are contentious, and I also--I also would do no finger-pointing whatsoever. I would--you know, I would not say, you know, `George'--`the previous administration got us into this.' Forget it. I mean, you know, the Navy made a mistake at Pearl Harbor and had too many ships there. But the idea that we'd spend our time after that, you know, pointing fingers at the Navy, we needed the Navy. So I would--I would--I would--no finger-pointing, no vengeance, none of that stuff. Just look forward.

Buffett is not a politician.

But one doesn't have to be a political animal to know that Cong. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) is clearly thinking about putting the country first:

We will lose on legislation. But we will win the message war every day, and every week, until November 2010. Our goal is to bring down approval numbers for [Speaker Nancy] Pelosi and for House Democrats. That will take repetition. This is a marathon, not a sprint

1987: Yes, 1998: No, 2007: ???

Warren Buffett has a wonderful reputation as an investor. His accumulated stakes in Coca-Cola, Gillette, and the Washington Post are all good examples of "sticking to what you know" as an investment philosophy.

But his investment opportunities in the securities and funds industries are certainly not the ones about which he is the most convicted.

In 1987, the Sage of Omaha came in as a white knight to take a stake in Salomon Brothers, who had a hostile bid from corporate raider Ron Perelman on the table. Eleven years later, after a painful government bond scandal among other things, Sandy Weill took him out (of his misery???) with a tidy profit.

Then in 1998, he was asked to help stave off a global liquidity crisis by rescuing Long-Term Capital Management. Perhaps remembering his Solly experience (John Meriwether being a common denominator), he conveniently went on an Alaskan vacation with his new best friend and bungled the mechanics of his bid, which forced a consortium of banks (not including Bear Stearns) to come to the rescue.

Today, there are reports of Buffett taking a stake in Bear Stearns, perhaps to keep it independent as Wachovia and Bank of America are looking to expand their securities businesses through acquisition. Supposedly on vacation, just like in 1998 (what is it with these post-Labor Day retreats?), Buffett may change his tune on derivatives if the price is right.

The Golden Age of Newspapers?

Conventional wisdom says that the newspaper business is dead or dying. Yet Boston now has three daily papers (the Globe, the Herald, and the free Metro); this morning, 'vendors' were also distributing a new freebie: Vol 1, Issue 2 of "BostonNOW."

(Once upon a time, Boston was the home of multiple papers, a few of which are listed here.)

Unlike Metro, which generally relies on AP and wire reports with a few local columnists, NOW appears to have local correspondents as well and (perhaps) intends to break news. Today's cover story in NOW is a by-lined piece on "Crime on the T", although NOW also has items from, among other the Christian Science Monitor, State House News Service, and some articles that are uncredited. The NOW website also appears to be part of an on-line/off-line 'synergy' strategy.

While I wouldn't (and don't) bet against Warren Buffett's view of the newspaper business, somebody out there thinks that there's money to be made in ol' fish wrap, yet.