The View From 1776

Would You Hire This Man as CEO of a Major Corporation?


Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 08/27 at 02:10 PM
  1. Knowing what you know today about George Bush would you hire him as CEO of a major corporation? I don't think so, not unless you don't care about your money.

    The way Bush has handled the economy and catastrophes like Katrina has shown him to be incompetent as a business person or a business leader. If he had run a corporation instead of a country he would have been sacked long ago.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  08/29  at  02:51 PM
  2. Before I hired a CEO for a Major Corporation, the most important criteria for him would be whether he had the wisdom and judgment to hire competent staff.

    For instance, if the candidate for CEO had been treated for malignant melanoma, one of the most virulent and recurrent forms of cancer, I would want to be assured that the candidate understood the critical national security importance of identifying a person who would step in for him -- a person who would be immediately up to the job of running the country. This would be somebody with a lot of foreign policy experience, for example, who could immediately act in a crisis to safeguard America's interests in confrontations with Russia, Iran, North Korea, etc.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  08/31  at  09:07 PM
  3. Forgive David and Pat my Lord, for they know not what they say. The economy was chirping along at near 4% growth and lowest unemployment in decades (and better than Clinton's) till Freddie and Fannie, under liberal leadership,got too greedy and gave out risky home loans worth billions of dollars and so did several banks. My bank, Wachovia, lost 16 billion dollars, and is George Bush responsible for its stupidity? Is Bush also responsible for the weak Louisiana levees that had been neglected for 70 years prior to him by local, state and Federal authorities and for the failue of FEMA, a body created by President Carter who gave us double digit inflation, unemployment and the worst economic growth in the entire past century?
    As for Pat's doubts about Sarah Palin, let's us just wait till she destroys that old Washington Bandicoot, Joe Biden in the debate about foreign policy. That aside, prognosis of malignant melanoma depends on what type it is (such as superficial spreading vs nodular melanoma) and the depth of invasion as assessed by Clark's staging. Low Clark levels have high survival rates. I hate to disappoint Pat but Senator McCain is going to outlive a lot of us and will certainly give 8 years to Sarah Palin to master foreign policy problems.
    I want to ask these two dear friends of Obama if they have realised that "the change we can believe in" is not picking a VP who is a Washington insider for 29 years and wasting the chance to pick a strong-willed woman who got 18 million votes and made primary history? Is there a better example of trampling on women's rights, hopes and aspirations?

    Nobama, nobiden.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  09/01  at  02:28 PM
  4. Ven:

    It appears that Sarah Palin has put her own ambition far ahead of the multiple needs of her family. To knowingly subject a teenage daughter to international approbation for the sake of one's own career takes a lot of, well, egocentrism (to put it gently).

    One wonders if Palin had been a man, would McCain's staff have given even a nanosecond of thought to putting somebody with so thin a resume on the ticket. Tim Pawlenty was clearly a stronger candidate, but apparently lacked the essential internal plumbing to qualify.

    I suppose if you are in favor of affirmative action, one should not be too critical of the Republicans for this transparently sexist ploy.

    And although I am charmed by your analogy of a Bandicoot (a small Australian marsupial) to Joe Biden, I confess I am too dense to catch the reference, literary or otherwise.

    And of course, it was not for building weak levees that Bush was criticized. It was his failures to help the drowning city, after the fact, and after his promises to the contrary, that revealed his perfidy.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  09/01  at  08:34 PM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.