He probably shouldn’t run for president of the ASPCA.
Leadership? Romney invested in Staples, he didn’t manage the company. I think Thomas Stemberg deserves the majority of credit for Staples’ actual expansion.
But Stemberg credits Romney with being the first institutional investor to come on board. Without that, and keep in mind that this was a very new business model, expansion of Staples wouldn’t have happened, or would have happened far more slowly.
Sane and realistic? Hillary Clinton?
I disagree with nearly all of Obama’s positions, but I’ll vote for him without hesitation. If Clinton wins the nomination I’ll find a 3rd party candidate again.
It was my impression that the (FoxNews) pundits where not gloating over Hillary’s numbers because they hate all things Democrat, but because of the way (over the last year) she had been perceived or portrayed as taking the Democratic Presidential nomination as a given.
A lot of folks are amused when the rich and powerful have reality bite them (or at least nibble) on the arse once in the while.
The Conservative Commentariat’s hatred of Hillary (and of her husband, who they fear would be the power behind the throne, not to mention tainting the White House all over again) is such that they’re not thinking clearly of who they’d rather run against in November. They hate Hillary right now, just as they have since 1992, and they’re going to keep on hating her. By the time Obama has the nomination they’ll realize that they were a bit distracted… but there will still be time to smear him. They did it to John Kerry, who for all his faults was a highly-experienced senator and a decorated war hero, so you can be sure they’ll do it to Obama, too.
Which says diddlysquat about Romney’s contributions to the running of the Staples business beyond providing the money to support Stemberg’s vision and leadership. Venture capitalists get rich by making calculated bets on investments they hope will pay off big, and none of them, no matter how successful, always bet on a winner.
Take it from a Massachusetts resident (admittedly leftward leaning): Mitt spent the vast majority of his governorship running for President and trashing the state that gave him the platform from which to launch his bid, in the process running very hard away from a lot of things he said to win Bay State voters.
An empty suit flapping in the wind.
It sounds like Romney took the initiative in creating Staples.
Romney invented the stapler?
No, he Staples his hair in place.
Some VCs provide both money and management guidance. Some provide just money. Which camp did Romney fall into?
He does deserve credit for rescuing the Olympics after the Salt Lake City people totally screwed it up.
Obama’s name may sound foreign, but he neither looks nor sounds foreign. HRC tried the experienced competent tack in Iowa, and if it didn’t fly there, where is it going to fly?
The only person experience will help is McCain. Being First Lady doesn’t really count for experience. Being mayor of a city attacked by foreigners doesn’t mean you have foreign policy experience.
Giuliani has been off people’s radar screens for a while. I don’t think he’s electable. Forget about the leaving your wife via press conference stuff. The New Yorker last week had an interesting article about his appointments. One was Ray Harding, the Liberal Party Chair, son, a college dropout who got appointed head of a large division. He promptly embezzled $400 K and fled. I don’t think Harding’s other son, also appointed to a job he had no qualifications for, stole anything at least. We all know about Kerik. Making Rudy president would be like making Ken Berry’s character on F Troop general of the army.
Don’t confuse the general electorate with the Democratic Party activists. I don’t know that the Republican nominee will try either of those tactics, but maybe some soft-money interest group will. They made Kerry look French-- not sure how successful, but remember that tidbit flying around in '04?
Well, imagine if Arnold decides he doesn’t want a Democrat in the WH, and pulls out all the stops to campaign for the Republican nominee. He could make a huge difference in this election if he so chooses.
Another possibility for the question posed in the OP: no matter how weak a candidate Hillary is in the general election (or no matter how weak conservatives think/hope she is), there is still a non-zero chance she could become POTUS in the general election, especially given that I don’t recall a hypothetical general election poll that puts her SIGNIFICANTLY behind anyone. In that sense, wouldn’t it be logical for them to try to scuttle that, given their dislike of her?
I don’t know which pundits Dio or anybody else is reading. The ones I read are well aware of the various consequences.
Here’s what Goldberg actually wrote http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmFkYTQyZTg5NmE3MWM4MjUxNzllZDBlMGRiNmJhZTk=
From him, no references to race, no references to riots. Either you misunderstood Greenwald, or he somehow wrote about something that simply wasn’t there.
A letter to Andrew Sullivan http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/01/rage-against-th.html
Pretty much what Goldberg predicted. How about that! Who’s the crazy, scared, pathetic dumbass, again?
I’ll make a prediction: Greenwald, as he has done in the past, won’t say a word about this; and his readers, if confronted, will dismiss it.
In the future, I suggest you go to the people he quotes and check what they said (and their clarifications) for yourself. You might be surprised. And try not to get wound up in your own emotional responses and generalizations.
Goldberg is full of shit. His article was pure race-baiting (read between the lines) and Sullivan’s story about enraged Obama supporters does not say they thought the loss had any racial overtones. Goldberg is guilty of some pretty grotesque, racist scaremongring here. “If Obama gets nominated, the n…s will kill you if he loses.” What a piece of shit that guy is.
Why use staples on snap-on hair?
Which “certain segments” was he talking about, then? If you want to pretend to ignorance, simply read the comments from Malkin’s website that Greenwald provided for your edification. Apparently you didn’t even read the linnk to Greenwald’s site that I provided, because you would have seen all of this discussed there. Why is that, I wonder?
Um, wow, that’s a softball I’ll have to let fly by, I guess. Do you regard this as “social unravelling” of the type that should be feared? Is that “a certain segment” coming “completely unhinged”? To make this exactly what Goldberg predicted, you have to make some extremely interesting reinterpretations of his words. Nice try, though.
Given that he presented Goldberg’s quote almost in its entirety, there is nothing I was missing. There is also no correction required. It played out exactly like every other dog whistle to the midless conservative base, as proven in the commentary from Michelle Malkin.
In the future, I suggest that you try not to play so ignorant. Next you’ll be telling us that Philadelphia, Mississippi is a perfectly reasonable and innocent place to kick off a presidential campaign.
Ask Goldberg. I believe he has actually clarified what he meant by this at the Corner blog.
Those are the comments, not Malkin.
Just a day or two before the kerfuffle over either Harriet Miers or the Dubai ports deal, Greenwald claimed all right-wingers walk in lockstep. He did not back down from his unqualified statement. With that and a host of other things, I concluded he wasn’t worth reading. Your cites of him, among other things, confirm my conclusion.
If I may, I’d like to point out that you correctly did not quote me as saying “exactly” because I did not say it. However, you went on to say “nice try”, even though I did not try to make any such exact “reinterpretation”, so “nice try” makes no sense. It appears it is you who has made a “reinterpretation” of what I wrote. As for making other “extremely interesting reinterpretations” (your phrase, and no doubt unintentionally a great euphemism), I leave that to Greenwald. He is a genius at it.
First you say “almost in its entirety” and then say you didn’t miss anything? Does not compute. How much else did Greenwald present “almost in its entirety”?
Something that went completely by me when I first read your post was Greenwald including Glenn Reynolds in all this. That’s mainly because accusing him of things like this is beyond ridiculous. Seriously, read Reynolds for yourself. Taking Greenwald’s word for this is not a good idea.